ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3

2010-07-03 15:39:50
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/03/2010 11:33 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:
A we already have centralized solutions for interdomain routing based on
E.164. its called ENUM in both its private and public instantiations. It
works pretty well BTW and globally deployed.

$ host -t NAPTR 7.8.2.4.9.2.3.8.0.4.1.e164.arpa.
Host 7.8.2.4.9.2.3.8.0.4.1.e164.arpa. not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)

Until this request succeeds, I am supporting the creation of the ViPR WG.


IMHO this charter is a non starter and should not be approved on the basis
of this statement alone.

"finding domains that claim to be responsible for a given phone number"

This IMHO is flat out impossible. Validating or authenticating an entity
that is "responsible for a phone number" is as bad as  " who is the carrier
of record" , is a massive rathole. Cullen and Johathan should know better.
Certs? LNP ? 

We have this problem of E.164 validation all the time in SIP and its not
going to be solved in the IETF.

-----Original Message-----
From: dispatch-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:dispatch-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:33 AM
To: Mary Barnes
Cc: DISPATCH; IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3

It looks to me that one can imagine 'centralized' solutions which are
also based on reusing SIP related functionality developed in RAI. I
would rather not close such an option and allow the WG a window of
opportunity in which alternate solutions that could meet the same goals
can be presented.  

Dan


-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mary(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)barnes(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:24 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: DISPATCH; IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3

Hi Dan,

The term peer to peer is intended to exclude mechanisms that 
would use a central repository for the information:  This was 
discussed in an earlier thread:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg02027.html

In one sense it is a solution, however, in another sense it 
is reusing SIP related functionality defined in RAI and thus 
is in a similar vein as specifying the use of SIP in a charter.

Thanks,
Mary.

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) 
<dromasca(_at_)avaya(_dot_)com> wrote:
The VIPR WG will address this problem by developing a peer to peer 
based approach to finding domains that claim to be 
responsible for a 
given phone number and validation protocols to ensure a reasonable 
likelihood that a given domain actually is responsible for 
the phone 
number.

Hi,

Clarification question. What exactly means 'peer to peer 
based approach'
and what kind of approaches are excluded by having this in 
the charter.
Does 'approach' mean solution? If so why does a specific type of 
solution need to be agreed in the charter, while all we 
have at hand 
at this point are individual contribution I-Ds that describe the 
'problem statement and some possible starting points for solutions'?

Thanks and Regards,

Dan


- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Personal email: marc(_at_)petit-huguenin(_dot_)org
Professional email: petithug(_at_)acm(_dot_)org
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkwvn94ACgkQ9RoMZyVa61dAtwCgj2cDYsio0KOLKt7ZNj8Y7UA4
2Y4AnA1IQwRvzhbuePxXU2XYh9v8DSyh
=cUj9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf