Subject: [drinks] Shutting down the DRINKS WG?

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:09:17 -0500

I've sent several notes to this list, the Design Team and others privately
on the lack of progress. 

I have to conclude that there is no further interest in proceeding with
DRINKS.

Should I send a note to the AD's requesting that the DRINKS WG be shut down?

This is very much a "speak now or else" note. 

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting
Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us>
skype: rshockey101 
LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/rshockey101
http//www.sipforum.org

---

From: Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:00:29 +0100

> Should I send a note to the AD's requesting that the DRINKS WG be shut down?

I didn't like the direction this group was heading, and I do not have the
time to propose alternative solutions.

So, shutting down the group is fine with me.

cheers,

/ol
-- 
// Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>, T: +43 1 5056416 - 33, F: - 933 //

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:32:50 -0500

It seems a shame that all the work already done would be thrown away.

Is there no longer a need for this in the industry?  Has the problem this working group was formed to address been overcome by events?

And if the group is shut down, would there be a possibility of having the current work published as Informational?

-andy

On Dec 11, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> drinks mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks

---

From: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:04:56 -0700

Hi Rich,

   I have not received emails from you or Alex either privately or as
part of the design team (which I think at some point I was an active
participant in).  Nothing personal but let's go on the record: do I have
to contact my IT department or check my email filter rules?  Or did I
get dropped from the distribution list?
While it does provide no excuses for the lack of progress (on my end),
it means that authors need to be reminded they have duties to the WG at
times.

   I would think that there is still interest given the industry talks
around registry-to-registry communications.  If folks think this is
addressed by some recent events (to Andy's question), speak up.  In my
view, it is not.

Jean-Francois.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Newton
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 9:33 AM
> To: Richard Shockey
> Cc: 'IETF DRINKS WG'
> Subject: Re: [drinks] Shutting down the DRINKS WG?
> 
> Is there no longer a need for this in the industry?  Has the
> problem this working group was formed to address been overcome by
> events?
> 
> And if the group is shut down, would there be a possibility of
> having the current work published as Informational?
> 
> -andy
>

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:44:10 -0500

>  Behalf Of Jean-Francois Mule
>  Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:05 PM
>  To: Richard Shockey
>  Cc: IETF DRINKS WG

Check with your IT dept ..I sent notes to you personally and through the
design team lists etc and on this one as well. It happens..

>  it means that authors need to be reminded they have duties to the WG
>  at times.
>  

But to the point .. IYHO is there sufficient interest in continuing the
work?  Privately I hear conflicting views.

---

From: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:39:47 -0700

Just so that you know, I checked with Sumanth and Manjul and none of us
got the message you sent on 12/8.

> work?  Privately I hear conflicting views.

I'm interested in continuing the work.  Who else?

Jean-Francois.

> From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:44 PM
> To: Jean-Francois Mule; 'IETF DRINKS WG'
> Subject: RE: [drinks] Shutting down the DRINKS WG?
> 
> 
> 
> >  participant in).  Nothing personal but let's go on the record:
> do I
> >  have

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:05:16 -0500

This is was the note I privately sent on the 8th

Somebody's Bayesian filter is a little tight I would assume, but no harm
done. The question is still relevant. 

No progress since August might lead one to believe there is no more
interest. 

It's the chairs obligation to try and keep the work on track or take
remedial action. 

Alexander has been on family leave the last couple of weeks ( first kid, boy
I'm told ).

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:00 AM
To: 'Guyton, Deborah A'; 'Jean-Francois Mule'; 'Cartwright, Kenneth';
'Alexander Mayrhofer'; 'Maharishi, Manjul'; 'Cartwright, Kenneth'; 'Spencer
Dawkins'; 'Sumanth Channabasappa'
Subject: I've been trying to contact some of you via mail etc and on the
list.

Obviously there is no progress on either the DRINKS requirements or protocol
draft and the chairs need some guidance on what is going on. If there is no
interest in proceeding then the chairs can recommend to the AD's that the WG
either be shut down or put into suspension.  We just know.

>  Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:40 PM
>  To: Richard Shockey
>  Cc: IETF DRINKS WG

---

From: "Maharishi, Manjul" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:31:43 -0500

Hello Richard,

Yes, I too didn't get the email sent to the Design team.

Can you pls confirm what email address you used for me (due to the not-so-recent divestiture of my group from VeriSign to TNS, it may have gone to the older - and not functional anymore - email address; in which case, it would have bounced back!).

I think that not having any meeting in the last IETF (not even online-only) added to the lack-of-progress on this front.

Thanks.

Manjul

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Richard Shockey
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 5:05 PM
To: 'IETF DRINKS WG'
Subject: Re: [drinks] Shutting down the DRINKS WG?

Somebody's Bayesian filter is a little tight I would assume, but no harm done. The question is still relevant.

No progress since August might lead one to believe there is no more interest.

It's the chairs obligation to try and keep the work on track or take remedial action.

Alexander has been on family leave the last couple of weeks ( first kid, boy I'm told ).

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:00 AM
To: 'Guyton, Deborah A'; 'Jean-Francois Mule'; 'Cartwright, Kenneth'; 'Alexander Mayrhofer'; 'Maharishi, Manjul'; 'Cartwright, Kenneth'; 'Spencer Dawkins'; 'Sumanth Channabasappa'
Subject: I've been trying to contact some of you via mail etc and on the list.

This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may
contain confidential and privileged information of Transaction Network Services.
Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:35:18 -0500

>  Can you pls confirm what email address you used for me (due to the
>  not-so-recent divestiture of my group from VeriSign to TNS, it may
>  have gone to the older - and not functional anymore - email address;
>  in which case, it would have bounced back!).

Well that was certainly my fault. But the last communication we had from the
design team was late June and as I noted the last real work discussion on
the list was in August. That does not answer the question at hand. Do people
really want to do this work and if so what is the plan and agreement on
milestones. 

>  I think that not having any meeting in the last IETF (not even online-
>  only) added to the lack-of-progress on this front.

Well that decision made after the chairs made a doodle poll that very few
people could attend Hiroshima. That is not an excuse for lack of activity or
progress. The chairs are not necessarily responsible for doing the work only
that it gets done.

---

From: "Alexander Mayrhofer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:01:16 +0100

> Alexander has been on family leave the last couple of weeks ( 

Hello, 

Right - i haven't been on leave of the last few weeks, but i haven't
been able to spend a lot of time for DRINKS recently. However, here we
go:

[chair hat on]

I agree that there has been very little progress in recent months. My
impression is that this was due to the following reasons:

- No meeting in Hiroshima (which obviously meant no motivation to "get
something done for the meeting)

- Stockholm was sort of an "milestone", towards which the design team
worked, and we (= the chairs) have not properly picked up on progress
since then as well (new milestones, design team meetings, etc.)

- The general state of the industry, with people focusing on different
things rather than standardization

- The concept of the "Design team" probably put off "regular" WG
participants, because a lot of work was going on only within the team,
and was not properly communicated back to the group (my personal fault,
probably), which created a situation that nobody outside the design team
is actively participating anymore. I still *do* think that having a core
team is necessary, but that core team needs to communicate much more
openly to the rest of the group.

- Some people were not satisfied with the direction that group / the
design team was heading, and hence stopped contributing (or even
lurking).

Therefore, i think that the group has the following options:

A) "Continue as before Stockholm": Post new milestones that still
reflect the current work plan (requirements, protocol, transport), pick
up work again on the existing documents (in the existing direction!),
and try to get them out ASAP. This will mean that some former
participants will still not be happy with the outcome, which in turn
might mean that there will be less deployment than we'd like to have.

B) "Reconsider": Gather feedback from WG participants that have ceased
to participate, and amend the current work direction (more about that
below..). This could bring more participants back "into the boat", but
means that we'd have to re-think certain approaches.

C) "Suspend": Put the WG to sleep (I'm an expert in doing that to 2 week
old babies currently only, though). That means we wait for ... Err....
Whatever. Personally, i doubt that "waiting" increases the interest in a
certain topic, unless the demand in the industry suddenly rises. Waiting
is also unlikely to create significant progress to the documents,
obviously.

D) "Shut down": This is what Richard has been talking about. Declare the
WG a failure, and remove it from the RAI work plan. Documents would
expire.

Feedback about those options is appreciated.

[chair hat off]

(Note: these are moer rough thoughts rather then the PerfectPlan(tm) )

Personally as a WG participang, i would prefer option B). It would be
sad to throw away all the work that we have done so far, and i think
that we could get some "fresh air" into the group if we did re-consider
our direction a little bit. I think there's still enough interest in the
original problem, and i think (even though we have failed at this in the
past) it *is* important to solve the LUF/LRF distinction. Also,
particularly Penn's message 

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/drinks/current/msg00527.html

"we'll look for something simpler" got me thinking that we probably
tried to do too many things at once, somewhere have a structural problem
in our approach, and that seperating out might be a good thing. During
the work of collecting the use cases and requirements, we came up with a
lot of dimensions, and particularly the combination of the dimensions
makes the potential protocol very complicated (eg. the introduction of
timed transactions is a nightmare from the complexity standpoint!)

>From my perspective, we have one *very* significant constraint in this
group: We don't have the expertise, and hence CANNOT create a routing
protocol (we're in the wrong area as well). However, while the LUF step
clearly is a "lookup/directory" step (as the name says), LRF is - nomen
est omen - really close to full-fledged routing protocol (particularly
in the case of indirect peering) - so the somewhat frustrating part of
our work is that we can only discuss which kind of data would be needed
to be able to perform the routing step, but not how the actual routing
protocol works.

The "magic ball" part of that piece of work now is to create a
provisioning protocol for a routing protocol that does not exist :-o

And, i don't see such a "rouing protocol" to be created anytime soon -
there might exist several such routing protocols in proprietory
implementations, but there's no IETF protocol for that (well, there's
TRIP..)

Anyway, if we decided to "reconsider", we could do the following

- Doublecheck Terminology (We have agreed to re-use SPEERMINT
terminology where possible, any definition that is not included in
SPEERMINT should go into the use cases / requirements draft). Note that
this step would contain the hard nut of identifying what LUF/LRF means
for DRINKS (yes, i think there's no way around it, because of the
difference in lookup/location and routing/path)

- Revisit requirements and use cases. Particularly, check use cases with
"former participants", and see what needs to be added (or, even better,
simplified) to fulfill their needs.

- Create a solid definition of what data points are contained in SED
(this is about the question whether NAPTRs alone is good enough or not)

- Doublecheck the object model, and try hard at simplifing it (or, at
least ensure that simpler use cases only need a subset of the object
model to work)

- Revisit the protocol, and again try to simplify it, so that simple use
cases only require a very simple subset of the protocol.

Some other unsorted thoughts that come to my mind (problems that we
haven't been addressing so far):

- A "Public Identifier" can be a phone number, but also a SIP URI. Those
public identifiers are "looked up" to a "Destination Group". There's one
protocol that allows doing that for phone numbers (ENUM in whater
flavour), but there's no such protocol if the original identifier is a
SIP URI. Who does fill that hole?

- The "Destination Group" has to be some global identifier. We have not
yet discussed what kind of identifier that is (FQDN? ITAD? Some other
identifier for which we need to create an IANA registry? URI?). It seems
to me that the definition of that "Destination Group" alone would
require some significant work

- We haven't yet identified what the data elements of action SPEERMINT
type routing are. I've had a draft listing some of the elements. For
most of them, there's no definition of how to put them into a NAPTR -
how do we proceed about that? The draft is here:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mayrhofer-drinks-sed-elements-00

I'm sure there are more "interesting" issues that we come up once we
start to look at all the issues in detail. (and the question to the
group would be is there enough contribution to handle all that?)

Alex

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:21:30 +0000

Alex,

Thanks, that's a useful summary of where we are.

I'm one of those who was unhappy with the direction the group was going, 
so I favour your '(b)' approach.

On the question of DG identifiers, don't forget that I posted an 
(incomplete) draft to the mailing list some time back.  The general intent 
was that the DG be relatively "opaque", such that little meaning could be 
attached to it, but the draft also suggested that it be suffixed with a 
domain name to ensure global uniqueness.

Ray

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:31:31 -0500

Chair hat off,

Alex has summed the issues up very well indeed. 

I'm not going to be prescriptive and suggest which option I prefer, but I am
concerned about the meta issue of "What is the demand for this protocol?".
I'm certainly getting mixed private messages from the carriers on what they
perceive is the real market for DRINKS etc.  Is it  SSP to Registry,
Registry to Registry Internal provisioning of localized number translation
databases ( aka IP-SCP's ) etc. 

>From a purely routing perspective I hear a great deal more about the use of
SPID's or the proposed ITU G-SPID as a transitional mechanism to full URI
based data exchanges. This is TN>SPID>Trunkgroup>Point of Interconnection.
In this scenario the actually URI for interconnection is masked and is
ultimately a private bi-lateral exchange between consenting SSP which
somewhat maps to the current business model.   And as some of you have seen
recently I'm very supportive of what Bernie is proposing to do with E2M
metadata in ENUM. He's trying to form a WG through DISPATCH right now.

The other issue is that a lot of the carriers ( mobile and landline) are in
a world of financial hurt , ARPU continues to decline, CAPEX / R&D budgets
are not what they used to be.  The supplier community is not doing that
great either. This may not be a high priority and realistically this
protocol is directed towards carriers. 

To be even more blunt, I have not been able to get the GSM mobile operators
interested in DRINKS which is utterly baffling  to me since their stated IP
interconnection strategy is based in part on the use of ENUM like databases.

" How, pray tell, do you propose to get the numbers into those databases?",
I ask. I don't get an answer. 

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:22 AM
To: Alexander Mayrhofer
Cc: IETF DRINKS WG; [email-masked]; Richard Shockey
Subject: Re: [drinks] Options (Was: Shutting down the DRINKS WG?)

Alex, 

I'm one of those who was unhappy with the direction the group was going, so
I favour your '(b)' approach. 

Ray

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:01:30 -0500

It is one thing to ask if this work has been overcome by events, but if we are asking about the scope of the protocol then the IETF/IESG did not do its job during the chartering of the group.

I cam away from Stockholm thinking the working group had made a bunch of reasonable decisions.  I didn't agree with all of them, but everything seemed reasonable and rational.  If people are saying they don't like the direction this work is now taking, they speak now.

-andy

On Dec 16, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:

> I’m not going to be prescriptive and suggest which option I prefer, but I am concerned about the meta issue of “What is the demand for this protocol?”.  I’m certainly getting mixed private messages from the carriers on what they perceive is the real market for DRINKS etc.  Is it  SSP to Registry,  Registry to Registry Internal provisioning of localized number translation databases ( aka IP-SCP’s ) etc.
>  
> From a purely routing perspective I hear a great deal more about the use of SPID’s or the proposed ITU G-SPID as a transitional mechanism to full URI based data exchanges. This is TN>SPID>Trunkgroup>Point of Interconnection.   In this scenario the actually URI for interconnection is masked and is ultimately a private bi-lateral exchange between consenting SSP which somewhat maps to the current business model.   And as some of you have seen recently I’m very supportive of what Bernie is proposing to do with E2M metadata in ENUM. He’s trying to form a WG through DISPATCH right now.
>  
> The other issue is that a lot of the carriers ( mobile and landline) are in a world of financial hurt , ARPU continues to decline, CAPEX / R&D budgets are not what they used to be.  The supplier community is not doing that great either. This may not be a high priority and realistically this protocol is directed towards carriers.
>  
> To be even more blunt, I have not been able to get the GSM mobile operators interested in DRINKS which is utterly baffling  to me since their stated IP interconnection strategy is based in part on the use of ENUM like databases.
>  
> “ How, pray tell, do you propose to get the numbers into those databases?”, I ask. I don’t get an answer.
>  
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
> I'm one of those who was unhappy with the direction the group was going, so I favour your '(b)' approach. 
> 
> On the question of DG identifiers, don't forget that I posted an (incomplete) draft to the mailing list some time back.  The general intent was that the DG be relatively "opaque", such that little meaning could be attached to it, but the draft also suggested that it be suffixed with a domain name to ensure global uniqueness. 
> 
> Ray 
> 
>

---

From: Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:07:50 +0100

> so I favour your '(b)' approach.

Agreed on both counts.

My analysis and recommendations are here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/drinks/current/msg00529.html

/ol

---

From: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:55:49 -0700

Andy wrote:

> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:01 AM
> To: Richard Shockey
> Cc: [email-masked]; 'IETF DRINKS WG'
> It is one thing to ask if this work has been overcome by events,
> but if we are asking about the scope of the protocol then the
> IETF/IESG did not do its job during the chartering of the group.

Agreed.  And let's ask the question: what happen between the chartering
and the Stockholm meeting?  We had several folks involved in the
requirements design team, we put out a skeletum for the protocol for
bashing.  Did all the folks who attended those calls thought this work
was of no use? 

> I cam away from Stockholm thinking the working group had made a
> bunch of reasonable decisions.  I didn't agree with all of them,
> but everything seemed reasonable and rational.  If people are
> saying they don't like the direction this work is now taking, they
> speak now.

+1
Not only that but those folks need to write I-Ds.  Besides Otmar (who
was for the record opposed to the wg to start with), where are the other
opposing views?

I for sure am not saying that what we have is right.  But having a
discussion on shutting down the group seems way premature to me.

Jean-Francois.

> > I'm not going to be prescriptive and suggest which option I
> prefer, but I am concerned about the meta issue of "What is the
> demand for this protocol?".  I'm certainly getting mixed private
> messages from the carriers on what they perceive is the real market
> for DRINKS etc.  Is it  SSP to Registry,  Registry to Registry
> Internal provisioning of localized number translation databases (
> aka IP-SCP's ) etc.
> >
> > From a purely routing perspective I hear a great deal more about
> the use of SPID's or the proposed ITU G-SPID as a transitional
> mechanism to full URI based data exchanges. This is
> TN>SPID>Trunkgroup>Point of Interconnection.   In this scenario the
> actually URI for interconnection is masked and is ultimately a
> private bi-lateral exchange between consenting SSP which somewhat
> maps to the current business model.   And as some of you have seen
> recently I'm very supportive of what Bernie is proposing to do with
> E2M metadata in ENUM. He's trying to form a WG through DISPATCH
> right now.
> >
> > The other issue is that a lot of the carriers ( mobile and
> landline) are in a world of financial hurt , ARPU continues to
> decline, CAPEX / R&D budgets are not what they used to be.  The
> supplier community is not doing that great either. This may not be
> a high priority and realistically this protocol is directed towards
> carriers.
> >
> > To be even more blunt, I have not been able to get the GSM mobile
> operators interested in DRINKS which is utterly baffling  to me
> since their stated IP interconnection strategy is based in part on
> the use of ENUM like databases.
> >
> > " How, pray tell, do you propose to get the numbers into those
> databases?", I ask. I don't get an answer.
> >
> Behalf Of [email-masked]
> (incomplete) draft to the mailing list some time back.  The general
> intent was that the DG be relatively "opaque", such that little
> meaning could be attached to it, but the draft also suggested that
> it be suffixed with a domain name to ensure global uniqueness.
> >
> > Ray
> >
> >

---

From: "PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:15:22 -0500

Andy:
For the record, I too was one of the doubters as I stated a few times on
the list. 

Penn Pfautz
AT&T Access Management
+1-732-420-4962

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Andrew Newton
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:02 PM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: [email-masked]; 'IETF DRINKS WG'
Subject: Re: [drinks] Options (Was: Shutting down the DRINKS WG?)

It is one thing to ask if this work has been overcome by events, but if
we are asking about the scope of the protocol then the IETF/IESG did not
do its job during the chartering of the group.

I cam away from Stockholm thinking the working group had made a bunch of
reasonable decisions.  I didn't agree with all of them, but everything
seemed reasonable and rational.  If people are saying they don't like
the direction this work is now taking, they speak now.

-andy

On Dec 16, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:

> I'm not going to be prescriptive and suggest which option I prefer,
but I am concerned about the meta issue of "What is the demand for this
protocol?".  I'm certainly getting mixed private messages from the
carriers on what they perceive is the real market for DRINKS etc.  Is it
SSP to Registry,  Registry to Registry Internal provisioning of
localized number translation databases ( aka IP-SCP's ) etc.
>  
> From a purely routing perspective I hear a great deal more about the
use of SPID's or the proposed ITU G-SPID as a transitional mechanism to
full URI based data exchanges. This is TN>SPID>Trunkgroup>Point of
Interconnection.   In this scenario the actually URI for interconnection
is masked and is ultimately a private bi-lateral exchange between
consenting SSP which somewhat maps to the current business model.   And
as some of you have seen recently I'm very supportive of what Bernie is
proposing to do with E2M metadata in ENUM. He's trying to form a WG
through DISPATCH right now.
>  
> The other issue is that a lot of the carriers ( mobile and landline)
are in a world of financial hurt , ARPU continues to decline, CAPEX /
R&D budgets are not what they used to be.  The supplier community is not
doing that great either. This may not be a high priority and
realistically this protocol is directed towards carriers.
> To be even more blunt, I have not been able to get the GSM mobile
operators interested in DRINKS which is utterly baffling  to me since
their stated IP interconnection strategy is based in part on the use of
ENUM like databases.
(incomplete) draft to the mailing list some time back.  The general
intent was that the DG be relatively "opaque", such that little meaning
could be attached to it, but the draft also suggested that it be
suffixed with a domain name to ensure global uniqueness.

---

From: "PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:22:16 -0500

Rich:
One guess I would hazard as to GSM disinterest may be that their model
doesn't put policy into the registry much as you describe in the third
paragraph. From that perspective drinks is bound to seem a little
overweight.
 
Penn Pfautz
AT&T Access Management
+1-732-420-4962

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Richard Shockey
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:32 PM
To: [email-masked]; 'IETF DRINKS WG'
Subject: Re: [drinks] Options (Was: Shutting down the DRINKS WG?)

Chair hat off,

I'm not going to be prescriptive and suggest which option I prefer, but
I am concerned about the meta issue of "What is the demand for this
protocol?".  I'm certainly getting mixed private messages from the
carriers on what they perceive is the real market for DRINKS etc.  Is it
SSP to Registry,  Registry to Registry Internal provisioning of
localized number translation databases ( aka IP-SCP's ) etc. 

>From a purely routing perspective I hear a great deal more about the use
of SPID's or the proposed ITU G-SPID as a transitional mechanism to full
URI based data exchanges. This is TN>SPID>Trunkgroup>Point of
Interconnection.   In this scenario the actually URI for interconnection
is masked and is ultimately a private bi-lateral exchange between
consenting SSP which somewhat maps to the current business model.   And
as some of you have seen recently I'm very supportive of what Bernie is
proposing to do with E2M metadata in ENUM. He's trying to form a WG
through DISPATCH right now.

The other issue is that a lot of the carriers ( mobile and landline) are
in a world of financial hurt , ARPU continues to decline, CAPEX / R&D
budgets are not what they used to be.  The supplier community is not
doing that great either. This may not be a high priority and
realistically this protocol is directed towards carriers. 

Of [email-masked]

Alex, 

Ray