Subject: [drinks] DRAFT Minutes of the DRINKS design team call on May 16 2012

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 12:40:08 +0000

DRINKS DESIGN Team Call DRAFT minutes May 16 2012 10am-11am EST
===============================================================

Participants
============
- Dean Willis
- Vikas Bhatia
- Manjul Maharishi
- David Schwartz (on Skype with Dean)

- Alexander Mayrhofer

Apologies:
- Syed Ali
- Ken Cartwright
- Sumanth Channabasappa 

ACTION ITEMS
------------

- Continue discussion of "route group / data type" open issue.
- Describe issue denial of service considerations (added during Paris) => Ken 
- Describe issue peering / route group offer generalization => Sumanth
- Describe issue internationalization => Alex

Agenda
------

1/ Work on documented open issues

Minutes of the call
-------------------

Alex describes/lists the action items from last week, four open issues 
were to be summarized. Alex has created a summary of the "Data Type / Record
Type" discussion.

There were responses sent to Alex' email on the WG mailing list.

== Egress route

Vikas explains: egress route discussion was brought up during the 
interim before paris, association with rtgrp rather than rtrec.

Vikas: mixing egress route with route rule thing is not a good thing. One or 
the other

Alex: Egress routes seem to be SP-internal - why share them via the registry?

Dean: channels that david thinks that ergress route is an 
"rewriting mechanism" only, "location" / "target" thing is 
independent from the egress route.

David says that since egress routes cannot be shared, we should 
replace that egress routes with a more generic rewriting rule. 
david argues that the generic route rule could be used as some 
kind of egress route.

Dean: re-iterating Alex's question: If you don't share it, why put 
it into the registry?

Alex: registry as mechanism to share info *within* the SP's network? 
Also, Concerned that adding new things all the time would delay documents.

"Hum": Keeping egress route instead the generic route rule thing is preferred 
by Vikas, Manjul and Alex, Dean said he doesn't know.

== Renaming route rec to SED rec

vikas: has a feeling that renaming is not worth because we would risk 
to miss some spots on the document. It's just a name.

Discussion around proposed re-structuring of RteRecType into SEDType.

This is not trying to solve the limitations of ENUM and or SIP (distinguish 

between "target" and "location" type ENUM records, for example).

discussion around "location / target" split: Some URI schemes clearly target 
(eg. URN with GSPID), some could be both (SIP), but for those dereferencing 
should define what to do.

Alex: Splitting in input only makes sense when output channel (lookup protocol) 
allows distinguish those categories as well - otherwise info getting lost.

No clear conclusion on the open action item. Call concludes after one hour.