Re: Internal WG Review: Recharter of IP Telephony (iptel)

[Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>]

I would like to have words on how the TRIP model fits with the DNS 
based mechanism for routing used in SIP, and the DNS based announcement 
of E.164->SIP URI mappings (which is followed by DNS based routing for 
SIP.

To a certain degree these mechanisms overlap, where the TRIP model 
(from my point of view) very much is a way for (for example) a set of 
gateways to PSTN announce to SIP outbound proxies what gateways exists, 
and what the cost is.

    paf

On fredag, maj 9, 2003, at 20:31 Europe/Stockholm, The IETF Secretariat 
wrote:

> A new charter for IP Telephony (iptel) in the Transport Area is being 
> considered.
> The draft charter is provided below for your review and comments.
>
> The Secretariat.
>
> IP Telephony (iptel)
>
> Chair(s):
>
> Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com>
> Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
>
> Transport Area Director(s):
>
> Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
> Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
>
> Transport Area Advisor:
>
> Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
>
> Mailing Lists:
>
> General Discussion: iptel@ietf.org
> To Subscribe: iptel-request@ietf.org
> In Body: put subscribe in subject
> Archive:
> www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/iptel/current/maillist.html
>
> Description of Working Group:
>
> The focus of the IP Telephony (iptel) group is on the problems related 
> to
> naming and routing for Voice over IP (VoIP) protocols.
>
> Naming is accomplished through the use of the tel URI, which specifies 
> a URI
> for telephone numbers. The tel URI was originally defined in RFC 2806, 
> which
> was developed outside of any IETF working group. The iptel working 
> group is
> responsible for updating the specification based on extensive 
> experience
> with the tel URI. It is chartered to develop any extensions to the tel 
> URI,
> such as support for number portability indicators and trunk groups.
>
> Routing protocols for VoIP allow intermediaries, such as SIP proxies 
> and
> H.323 gatekeepers, to make call routing decisions based on reachability
> information learned from peer elements. The iptel group has already 
> defined
> a protocol, Telephony Routing over IP (TRIP), RFC 3219, which solves 
> one
> aspect of this problem. Specifically, it handles the case where calls 
> need
> to be routed between domains. It allows for the exchange of routing
> information between these providers, so that policies can be applied 
> to the
> resulting data to create a forwarding information base.
>
> However, this protocol does not address all the scenarios of route
> information exchange between servers. One important scenario is the
> propagation of routing information between gateways and the signaling
> servers in front of them. This is also known as "gateway 
> registration". It
> allows the signaling server to make a routing decision about which 
> gateway
> to use based on dynamic information about the gateway resources. 
> Vendors
> have deployed proprietary solutions for this communications interface. 
> A
> standard is needed. The group will generate a standards track document 
> that
> defines a protocol (possibly based on TRIP) for this interface.
>
> The group will also generate a MIB document for TRIP.
>
> Note that the group is not working on elevating TRIP to Draft Standard 
> at
> this time.
>
> Deliverables:
>
> 1. A proposed standard specification for gateway to server route 
> exchange.
>
> 2. A proposed standard TRIP MIB specification, based heavily on the 
> existing
> BGP-4 MIB documents.
>
> 3. A standards track update to the tel URI.
>
> 4. Standards track extensions to the tel URI for PSTN 
> interoperability, such
> as number portability and trunk group identification.
>
> Goals and Milestones:
>
> Done Submit gateway location framework document to IESG for 
> consideration
> as an RFC.
>
> Done Submit call processing syntax framework document to IESG for
> consideration as an RFC.
>
> Done Submit call processing syntax document to IESG for consideration 
> as
> a Proposed Standard.
>
> Done Submit gateway location protocol document to IESG for 
> consideration
> as an RFC.
>
> Done TRIP MIB Document submitted to IESG for consideration as proposed
> standard
>
> June 03 Gateway to Server Route Exchange document submitted to IESG for
> consideration as proposed standard.
>
> July 03 Tel URI revisions submitted to IESG
>
> Sept 03 Number portability extensions submitted to IESG for 
> consideration
> as proposed standard.
>
> Oct 03 Trunk Group extensions submitted to IESG for consideration as
> proposed standard.
>
> Nov 03 Consider closing