Subject: TRIP for gateway registrations

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 02:32:49 -0500

Folks,

Every once in a while, the question comes up of why SIP REGISTER is not
the right vehicle for allowing gateways to register phone prefixes with
a proxy. I believe TRIP is far better for this purpose. As it turns out,
a small subset of TRIP is needed to solve this problem, and yet its
still interoperable with full blown TRIP. Hussein Salama and I have
written an I-D that discusses this. Until it appears in the archives,
you can pick up a copy at:

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen/papers/draft-rs-trip-gw-00.txt

Thanks,
Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg                       200 Executive Drive
Chief Scientist                             Suite 120 
dynamicsoft                                 West Orange, NJ 07052
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (732) 741-4778
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen         PHONE: (732) 741-7244
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

---------
This message came from the IETF IPTEL Working Group Mailing List.

---

From: Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:28:24 -0600

Until it appears in the archive, there is a new draft version
available at:
http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/drafts/draft-sinnreich-sip-qos-os
p-01.txt

Title:
Interdomain IP Communications with QoS, Authorization and Usage
Reporting

Authors:
H. Sinnreich, S. Donovan, D. Rawlins, S. Thomas

Abstract

   Commercial grade IP telephony requires linkage between call
setup,
   end-to-end QoS setup, interdomain authorization and
accounting. This
   draft considers the network model for inter-domain QoS for
access and
   transit networks, the service models and policy
implementation
   options. Also, interdomain authorization and accounting may
require
   the trust services of a clearinghouse, to which the local
policy
   server may outsource authorization for support for
inter-domain
   accounting.

   The draft defines two options for QoS support for telephony:
PSTN-
   style "QoS Assured" or Internet-style "QoS Enabled" service.
   Implementing the local policy or QoS deployment can also have
two
   options: The more usual policy "Pull Model" and the policy
"Push
   Model" that may be advantageous for large IP telephony
gateway
   deployments. The draft illustrates the various combinations
of QoS
   service and policy implementation for interdomain QoS with
   authorization and accounting.

Thanks, Henry

Henry Sinnreich
MCI WorldCom
400 International Parkway
Richardson, Texas 75081
USA

---------