Subject: [NSIS] Inter-Domain QOS Signaling and QSPEC Draft

From: "Roy, Radhika \(AEAD\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 10:53:01 -0400

John:
In a different context, I am attaching an email from the SIPPING WG with
respect to Inter-Domain SIP signaling. In this respect, we wonder how
far we would be willing to go for inter-domain QOS signaling despite
some problems as discussed in threads like - RE: [NSIS] I-D
ACTION:draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-05.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nsis/current/msg05288.html> , 
In this NSIS thread, we have made a modest proposal to split the QSPEC
draft into two as follows:

1.	The first draft will deal with only QSPEC only for NSIS QOS
signaling on end-to-end basis with no restrictions of any values of any
parameters per NSIS charter.
2.	The second draft may deal with all those restrictions for
forming inter-domain [e.g., NSIS (IETF) - Y.xxx (ITU-T)] QOS signaling
as they wish.

Best regards,
Radhika

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 2:45 AM
To: 'Juha Heinanen'; [email-masked]
Cc: 'Avshalom Houri'; 'Aki Niemi'; 'Michael Hammer (mhammer)'; 'ext Dean
Willis'; 'Paul Kyzivat'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Inter-Domain Requirements for SIP/SIMPLE

Sorry, I forgot to add that inter-domain agreements are not only a
non-scalable approach, but as Aki Niemi has pointed out, large providers
may
refuse to give attention to small providers.

VoIP Peering can therefore be a tool for discrimination against smaller
competitors, and may be misused for monopoly behavior IMHO. The IETF
would
therefore be well advised to develop BCPs exposing these pitfalls.

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Juha Heinanen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:36 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: 'Avshalom Houri'; 'Aki Niemi'; 'Michael Hammer (mhammer)'; 'ext Dean
Willis'; 'Paul Kyzivat'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Inter-Domain Requirements for SIP/SIMPLE

Henry Sinnreich writes:

 > Yes, you hit it the nail on the head. Running IP services on
biletaral
 > agreements is not scalalble and should not be legitimized in the IETF
in
 > any shape or form.

i fully support that position.  ietf should not get involved with
developing mechanisms for walled gardens.  the focus should be how on to
make sip/simple work securely between any internet nodes without any
non-scalable bilateral or clearing house agreements.  there is nothing
special in sip or simple as compared, for example, to email.

-- juha

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP
_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis