Subject: [Speermint] Interest in SPEERMINT provisioning issues.

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:41:50 -0500

There was some talk in San Diego of interest in peeling off the provisioning
issues surrounding SPEERMINT information registries into a separate work
item.

I'd like to get a poll of the list to see again how many people are
interested in the work and what might be the proper way to expedite this.

We're certainly not ready to provision policy yet but its clear that some
form of SPEERMINT provisioning requirements document is in order.

As I mentioned in the meeting there has been some preliminary work in the
area from the ENUM WG however it is based on EPP and as I mentioned most of
the OSS systems now deployed in carrier networks have generally been based
on SOAP/XML.

        RFC 4114

        Title:      E.164 Number Mapping for the Extensible
                    Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
        Author(s):  S. Hollenbeck
        Status:     Standards Track
        Date:       June 2005
        Mailbox:    [email-masked]
        Pages:      17
        Characters: 31490
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:    None

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-enum-epp-e164-08.txt

        URL:        ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc4114.txt

Provisioning issues are not very sexy but are essential to moving things
forward.

A. What interest is there in this work?

B. What scope should it take? SOAP etc?

C. Where should this work be done?

Richard Shockey
Director, Member of the Technical Staff
NeuStar
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org 
sip:5651(at)neustarlab.biz
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> 
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 15:21:30 -0500

Richard,

I think you are starting this off on the wrong foot, that is with a  
technology battle.  I've personally reviewed the specs for many of  
the peering points and only one used SOAP.  We shouldn't start off  
with a SOAP vs EPP vs REST vs ASN.1 battle.

As I stated at the mic when I brought up this idea, the design team  
should focus on the functional requirements for a provisioning  
interface.  It may turn out that EPP works just fine and that people  
hoisting their flavor of SOAP are just trying to drive a wedge in the  
marketplace.  If it turns out that EPP isn't right, then we can let  
the powers that be worry about who gets to specify the new protocol,  
etc...

To answer part of your question, yes I am interested in finding out  
what functions a provisioning interface needs to have.

-andy