Thursday, November 10, 2005
(Very) short Report from IETF#64 VOIPEER (SPEER) BoF
This morning the VOIPEER BoF took place at IETF#64 in Vancouver. The agenda and the proposed charter can be found here, the slides presented by Dave here.
The BoF was very well attended (approx 200), showing the interest of the community.
To start with the only clear outcome first, the name of to be established WG was discussed, and since the scope will be beyond VoIP and also real-time communications and on the other hand the scope will be restricted to SIP Peering, a proposal from Jonathan Rosenberg was accepted to call it:
SPEER
Willi Wimmreuter noted on the side that he likes this acronym because it also includes Skype Peering ;-)
The discussion on the charter took the most time and was very confusing and going somewhat around in circles. The easy part was what is out-of-scope (see slides), the complicated part was what is within the scope.
I hope the scribe will be able to get this confusing discussion correctly into the minutes and also that the chairs get the correct information into the updated charter.
I have a problem with excluding the policy issues out of the scope completely. I agree that SPEER should not define protocols, but at least what is required for determining the policy, similar to the decision on requirements for user identity (callerId) and accounting.
It was also decided to concentrate first on L5 peering and leave L2/3 issues for later re-chartering.
I will comment further on this after the minutes are available
The BoF was very well attended (approx 200), showing the interest of the community.
To start with the only clear outcome first, the name of to be established WG was discussed, and since the scope will be beyond VoIP and also real-time communications and on the other hand the scope will be restricted to SIP Peering, a proposal from Jonathan Rosenberg was accepted to call it:
SPEER
Willi Wimmreuter noted on the side that he likes this acronym because it also includes Skype Peering ;-)
The discussion on the charter took the most time and was very confusing and going somewhat around in circles. The easy part was what is out-of-scope (see slides), the complicated part was what is within the scope.
I hope the scribe will be able to get this confusing discussion correctly into the minutes and also that the chairs get the correct information into the updated charter.
I have a problem with excluding the policy issues out of the scope completely. I agree that SPEER should not define protocols, but at least what is required for determining the policy, similar to the decision on requirements for user identity (callerId) and accounting.
It was also decided to concentrate first on L5 peering and leave L2/3 issues for later re-chartering.
I will comment further on this after the minutes are available
Comments:
Although a clear division is not stated, IMHO the SIP Forum TWG is dealing primarily with IPB-PBX/Service Provider Interworking, whereas SPEER should deal primarily with SP/SP Interworking. Nevertheless, the Draft Recommendation of the TWG
http://wiki.sipforum.org/images/a/a9/Sf-draft-twg-IP_PBX_SP_Interop-sibley-v3.pdf
could provide very useful input to SPEER. The major difference is the simple bilateral trust relationship in the first case and the complicated trust relationship between multiple providers.
Post a Comment
http://wiki.sipforum.org/images/a/a9/Sf-draft-twg-IP_PBX_SP_Interop-sibley-v3.pdf
could provide very useful input to SPEER. The major difference is the simple bilateral trust relationship in the first case and the complicated trust relationship between multiple providers.
