Subject: RE: [Enum] RE: [voipeer] draft-meyer-voipeer-terminology-03.txt

From: "James McEachern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:20:52 -0400

Jason,
I think your idea of not constraining the group to "Voice" over IP peering is worth considering.  
In practice it appears that we are all agreed to limiting ourselves to SIP as the signaling mechanism for voice.  If we were to change the focus to "Peering for SIP services (or applications) including, but not limited to, voice"  would it really complicate things that much?  It might actually provide some useful focus, and get us away from these red herring discussions around legacy voice.    

Just a thought.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Livingood, Jason
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 11:00 AM
To: David Meyer; Henry Sinnreich
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Pfautz, Penn L,NEO; Michael Hammer (mhammer)
Subject: [Enum] RE: [voipeer] draft-meyer-voipeer-terminology-03.txt

> > Hint: The carrier definition is hopeless. "The Internet Is The 
> > Service" (Jon
> > Peterson) and voice is an application IMHO. Let's go back to the 
> > layers in the I-D.
> 
> 	Yep. There's no real value add in defining carrier
> 	IMO. Best solution: remove the definition of carrier. 
> 
> 	Dave

Sounds fine.  But if we did have to include something like this in the
future, I suggest discarding the term 'carrier' completely as a quaint,
outdated, and baggage-laden term.  ;-)  (no flames please, I am
half-joking, half-serious)  I might suggest, as I did before on the
list, something very broad and inclusive such as Real-Time
Communications Service Provider (RTCSP).  This could encompass folks
ranging from SBC and Verizon, to Skype, FWD and Vonage, to Vodafone and
Telefonica.  But I am not sure we need to concern ourselves with this
for now based on recent discussion here.

On a related definition, I think the definition of VoIP Service Provider
in the I-D is fine.  However, in the future, we should consider
including a definition of a SP that offers more than Voice.  Perhaps we
are unnecessarily constraining our work by defining the group as "Voice"
over IP peering, as many apps will begin to evolve such that voice is
but one component of the real-time communications stream between two or
more users.  This could voice along with IM/chat and video, looking at
apps available today.  Then again, there is something to be said for
constraining the boundaries of the problem we are trying to solve.  If
we can solve the peering problem for VoIP we can move on and broaden the
definitions and the problem scope later.

Regards,
Jason

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

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