From extest-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu Feb 1 06:06:32 2001 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id GAA23434 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 06:06:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10A14444A8 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 05:03:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: lists.bell-labs.com mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@lists.bell-labs.com To: spirits-archive@ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes X-Ack: no Sender: extest-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: extest-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: extest@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6 Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <20010201100342.10A14444A8@lists.bell-labs.com> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 05:03:42 -0500 (EST) This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your lists.bell-labs.com mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, spirits-request@lists.bell-labs.com) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@lists.bell-labs.com. Thanks! Passwords for spirits-archive@lists.ietf.org: List Password // URL ---- -------- spirits@lists.bell-labs.com QMKP http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/options/spirits/spirits-archive%40lists.ietf.org From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu Feb 8 11:00:00 2001 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA11329 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:59:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E8C4441B; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:00:01 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@share.research.bell-labs.com Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 798BE44414 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:59:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Thu Feb 8 10:57:01 EST 2001 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 39F2644380; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:45:24 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Received: from ans.ih.lucent.com (ans.ih.lucent.com [135.2.78.5]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E22834437D for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:45:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by ans.ih.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.5 sol2) id JAA28933; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 09:45:21 -0600 Cc: Steve Bellovin , SPIRITS list Received: from lucent.com by ans.ih.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.5 sol2) id JAA28878; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 09:45:17 -0600 Message-ID: <3A82BF6F.722851B@lucent.com> From: Alec Brusilovsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ru,uk MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Bradner , Allison Mankin Original-CC: Steve Bellovin , SPIRITS list Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------118E226156792E85CA6CD609" Subject: [SPIRITS] Submission of the SPIRITS Architecture draft for Informational RFC Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: IETF SPIRITS Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: http://lists.bell-labs.com/pipermail/spirits/ Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 09:46:55 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------118E226156792E85CA6CD609 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Allison, Scott, According to Section 7.5 of RFC 2418, the SPIRITS chairmen are submitting the I-D 'draft-ietf-spirits-architecture-01', http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-spirits-architecture-01.txt for the IESG consideration on the subject of approval its publication as an Informational RFC. This draft has been a working item and a milestone in the SPIRITS charter, it has undergone a three weeks long WG Last Call and has incorporated comments/changes from the last meeting in San Diego , as well as from the general SPIRITS WG constituency. Presently, this I-D reflects the consensus of the SPIRITS WG. The abstract of the draft is attached. Regards, Alec Brusilovsky This document describes the architecture for supporting SPIRITS services, which are those originating in the PSTN and necessitating the interactions between the PSTN and the Internet. (Internet Call Waiting, Internet Caller-ID Delivery, and Internet Call Forwarding are examples of SPIRIT services.) Specifically, it defines the components constituting the architecture and the interfaces between the components. --------------118E226156792E85CA6CD609 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=koi8-r; name="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Description: Card for Alec Brusilovsky Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin:vcard n:Brusilovsky;Alec tel;fax:+1 630 713 5840 tel;work:+1 630 713 8401 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:e-Services Group;Next Generation Evolution and Architecture version:2.1 email;internet:abrusilovsky@lucent.com title:MTS adr;quoted-printable:;;IHP 1A-423=0D=0A263 Shuman Blvd,P O Box 3050;Naperville;IL;60566-7050;U S x-mozilla-cpt:;5312 fn:Alec Brusilovsky end:vcard --------------118E226156792E85CA6CD609-- _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Wed Feb 21 18:02:05 2001 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA13437 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:02:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B554436B; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:02:02 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@share.research.bell-labs.com Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5DB6C44354 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:01:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Wed Feb 21 17:58:37 EST 2001 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 7141A44380; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:46:59 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Received: from ans.ih.lucent.com (ans.ih.lucent.com [135.2.78.5]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A4184437D for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:46:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by ans.ih.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.5 sol2) id QAA11733; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:46:56 -0600 Cc: Steve Bellovin Received: from lucent.com by ans.ih.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.5 sol2) id QAA11730; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:46:55 -0600 Message-ID: <3A9445C8.6A195CD7@lucent.com> From: Alec Brusilovsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ru,uk MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SPIRITS list Original-CC: Steve Bellovin Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------ACC61AC19128C1FCD6F32111" Subject: [SPIRITS] Protocol Requirements and Protocol Discussion Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: IETF SPIRITS Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: http://lists.bell-labs.com/pipermail/spirits/ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:48:40 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------ACC61AC19128C1FCD6F32111 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Group, There is a fresh I-D on SPIRITS Protocol Requirements available at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-spirits-reqs-00.txt This I-D is a direct result of a rough technical consensus reached on this exploder, as well as at our last meeting in San Diego. This I-D names SIP as a transport protocol of choice for SPIRITS. Since we have our requirements in place, I would like to start a protocol related online discussion on the subject of defining the way to carry specific SPIRITS-related parameters on Protocol C from SPIRITS Client to SPIRITS Gateway. Unless we have burning issues (please contact Steve or myself), I am recommending to skip the Minneapolis SPIRITS WG meeting and meanwhile concentrate on Protocol Proposals to be presented and discussed at IETF51 in London. Regards, Alec --------------ACC61AC19128C1FCD6F32111 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Description: Card for Alec Brusilovsky Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin:vcard n:Brusilovsky;Alec tel;fax:+1 630 713 5840 tel;work:+1 630 713 8401 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:e-Services Group;Next Generation Evolution and Architecture version:2.1 email;internet:abrusilovsky@lucent.com title:MTS adr;quoted-printable:;;IHP 1A-423=0D=0A263 Shuman Blvd,P O Box 3050;Naperville;IL;60566-7050;U S x-mozilla-cpt:;5312 fn:Alec Brusilovsky end:vcard --------------ACC61AC19128C1FCD6F32111-- _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Wed Feb 21 19:17:02 2001 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA14707 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:17:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D1D24434A; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:17:01 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Received: from mailsrv02.multitude.com (mailsrv02.multitude.com [63.251.235.89]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8CB244336 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:16:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from sbarber2k (unverified [63.251.235.92]) by mailsrv02.multitude.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 3.4.2) with SMTP id for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:13:15 -0800 Message-ID: <16ad01c09c65$9d9595f0$3a0514ac@sbarber2k> From: "Simon Barber" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Subject: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: IETF SPIRITS Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: http://lists.bell-labs.com/pipermail/spirits/ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:22:56 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Parlay have defined/are defining an API to control telecom services, SPIRITS is defining a protocol to do the same thing. Does anyone have any comments on the relationship between these two efforts and approaches, and the differences between them? What are the strong reasons for and against the SPIRITS approach, and the Parlay approach. Simon Barber _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu Feb 22 03:19:02 2001 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA05988 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 03:19:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 757154434D; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 03:19:01 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Received: from roll.cefriel.it (roll.cefriel.it [131.175.53.4]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA9ED44337 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 03:18:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from pcntw1 (pcntw1.cefriel.it [131.175.55.204]) by roll.cefriel.it with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id FJVYZ642; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:18:09 +0100 From: "Glauco Bigini" To: Subject: RE: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS Message-ID: <003601c09ca7$dd004db0$cc37af83@cefriel.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <16ad01c09c65$9d9595f0$3a0514ac@sbarber2k> Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: IETF SPIRITS Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: http://lists.bell-labs.com/pipermail/spirits/ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:17:13 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I studied the SPIRITS architecture for the last two months ando found that the threated arguments ar important but the one of SPIRITS is a useless fight. All the IT Majors are spending their money on software APIs like Parlay and JCC/JCAT and the future of convergent services like those addressed from SPIRITS is in these APIs. In my personal opinion the SPIRITS WG must provide a framework for the deployment of Telephony APIs (based on the SIP protocol), and forget the idea of a new protocol -----Original Message----- From: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com [mailto:spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com]On Behalf Of Simon Barber Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 1:23 AM To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Subject: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS Parlay have defined/are defining an API to control telecom services, SPIRITS is defining a protocol to do the same thing. Does anyone have any comments on the relationship between these two efforts and approaches, and the differences between them? What are the strong reasons for and against the SPIRITS approach, and the Parlay approach. Simon Barber _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu Feb 22 10:13:02 2001 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA13499 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:13:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 314B54438F; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:13:01 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Received: from mailwood.com (admin.mailwood.com [203.248.242.201]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7873844336 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:17:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: MAILER-DAEMON@mailwood.com To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Terrace_12848_5_982801025_0_RETMAIL_" Subject: [SPIRITS] Failure Notice Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: IETF SPIRITS Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: http://lists.bell-labs.com/pipermail/spirits/ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:17:05 KST +0900 ------=_Terrace_12848_5_982801025_0_RETMAIL_ Content-type: text/plain Receiver:jayhkim@xener.com No such user ------=_Terrace_12848_5_982801025_0_RETMAIL_ Content-type: message/rfc822 Received: from unknown[204.178.16.58] (envelope sender: ) by 203.248.242.201 (TERRACE MAILCENTER) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:17:04 KST +0900 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0464435E; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:17:01 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Received: from mailsrv02.multitude.com (mailsrv02.multitude.com [63.251.235.89]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8CB244336 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:16:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from sbarber2k (unverified [63.251.235.92]) by mailsrv02.multitude.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 3.4.2) with SMTP id for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:13:15 -0800 Message-ID: <16ad01c09c65$9d9595f0$3a0514ac@sbarber2k> From: "Simon Barber" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Subject: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: IETF SPIRITS Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: http://lists.bell-labs.com/pipermail/spirits/ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:22:56 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Parlay have defined/are defining an API to control telecom services, SPIRITS is defining a protocol to do the same thing. Does anyone have any comments on the relationship between these two efforts and approaches, and the differences between them? What are the strong reasons for and against the SPIRITS approach, and the Parlay approach. Simon Barber _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits ------=_Terrace_12848_5_982801025_0_RETMAIL_-- _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu Feb 22 10:13:10 2001 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA13510 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:13:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF8B44393; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:13:02 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@share.research.bell-labs.com Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 27E4A44336 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:19:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Wed Feb 21 20:16:13 EST 2001 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 7EF8E44380; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:04:45 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Received: from hotair.hobl.lucent.com (hotair.hobl.lucent.com [199.118.135.2]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 58C534437D for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:04:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from bell-labs.com by hotair.hobl.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.5 sol2) id UAA00101; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:04:45 -0500 Message-ID: <3A9465AB.9497B34E@bell-labs.com> From: Igor Faynberg Reply-To: faynberg@lucent.com Organization: Lucent Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-CCK-MCD EMS-1.4 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com, Simon Barber Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS References: <16ad01c09c65$9d9595f0$3a0514ac@sbarber2k> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: IETF SPIRITS Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: http://lists.bell-labs.com/pipermail/spirits/ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:04:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Simon Barber wrote: > > Parlay have defined/are defining an API to control telecom services, SPIRITS > is defining a protocol to do the same thing. Does anyone have any comments > on the relationship between these two efforts and approaches, and the > differences between them? Indeed! Lawrence Conroy, Frans Haerens, and I talked about that after the last SPIRITS meeting, and I am personally very glad to see the discussion moving to the list (I hope that esteemed chairmen share my enthusiasm.) Typicaly, an API specificiation defines a programmer's interface (e.g., set of procedure calls) for invoking services from a process on a particular machine. A protocol specification defines the messages that carry data from one IP host to another. If a protocol 1) carries exactly same data as available at the API specficiation and 2) does so in a sequence compatible with the API specification, then the protocol and API applications are compatible. I am not following Parlay, but it looks to me that the Parlay indeed defines API for the same services as PINT and SPIRITS protocols must support. Then, of course, it is important to ensure that the Parlay and SPIRITS specifications are compatible! Now is the best time to start working on that. I think sequencing in this case is an almost trivial subject (although SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY may require special attention), but parameter specification is where most of the job of ensuring the compatibility lies. If someone who knows Parlay (you, Simon?) could write a draft listing the INAP parameters Parlay found essential, that would be an essential input to the SPIRITS activities. The WG could accept all such parameters--to make the protocol and API fully compatible--or a subset of them, with an awareness of what would and would not work together. Again, I am glad Simon brought the subject to broad attention. > What are the strong reasons for and against the > SPIRITS approach, and the Parlay approach. These approaches are orthogonal, but they may or may not interwork. I am for making them interwork. Igor _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu Feb 22 11:02:02 2001 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA15169 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:02:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E457544385; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:02:01 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@share.research.bell-labs.com Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8835B44383 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:01:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Thu Feb 22 10:58:54 EST 2001 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 6FAE644380; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:47:26 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Received: from ans.ih.lucent.com (ans.ih.lucent.com [135.2.78.5]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A1154437D for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:47:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by ans.ih.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.5 sol2) id JAA00349; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:47:19 -0600 Received: from lucent.com by ans.ih.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.5 sol2) id JAA00346; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:47:18 -0600 Message-ID: <3A9534F0.882833E7@lucent.com> From: Alec Brusilovsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ru,uk MIME-Version: 1.0 To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS References: <003601c09ca7$dd004db0$cc37af83@cefriel.it> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------A9E7A6FA9E5AEC0D3942245F" Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: IETF SPIRITS Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: http://lists.bell-labs.com/pipermail/spirits/ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:49:04 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------A9E7A6FA9E5AEC0D3942245F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well that was a pretty blunt statement... I do think that this debate is going into somewhat disastrous area of API's vs. Protocols, which might be a totally different mail list all together. Instead, let's focus on more productive area of defining SPIRITS protocol, according to our Charter and making Parlay and SPIRITS compatible, as Simon and Igor suggested earlier. Regards, Alec Glauco Bigini wrote: > I studied the SPIRITS architecture for the last two months ando found that > the threated arguments ar important but the one of SPIRITS is a useless > fight. > > All the IT Majors are spending their money on software APIs like Parlay and > JCC/JCAT and the future of convergent services like those addressed from > SPIRITS is in these APIs. > > In my personal opinion the SPIRITS WG must provide a framework for the > deployment of Telephony APIs (based on the SIP protocol), and forget the > idea of a new protocol > > -----Original Message----- > From: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com > [mailto:spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com]On Behalf Of Simon Barber > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 1:23 AM > To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com > Subject: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS > > Parlay have defined/are defining an API to control telecom services, SPIRITS > is defining a protocol to do the same thing. Does anyone have any comments > on the relationship between these two efforts and approaches, and the > differences between them? What are the strong reasons for and against the > SPIRITS approach, and the Parlay approach. > > Simon Barber > > _______________________________________________ > SPIRITS mailing list > SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits > > _______________________________________________ > SPIRITS mailing list > SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits --------------A9E7A6FA9E5AEC0D3942245F Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=koi8-r; name="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Description: Card for Alec Brusilovsky Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin:vcard n:Brusilovsky;Alec tel;fax:+1 630 713 5840 tel;work:+1 630 713 8401 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:e-Services Group;Next Generation Evolution and Architecture version:2.1 email;internet:abrusilovsky@lucent.com title:MTS adr;quoted-printable:;;IHP 1A-423=0D=0A263 Shuman Blvd,P O Box 3050;Naperville;IL;60566-7050;U S x-mozilla-cpt:;5312 fn:Alec Brusilovsky end:vcard --------------A9E7A6FA9E5AEC0D3942245F-- _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu Feb 22 11:38:02 2001 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA16854 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:38:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1861C44352; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:38:01 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Received: from roll.cefriel.it (roll.cefriel.it [131.175.53.4]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D29344337 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:37:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from pcntw1 (pcntw1.cefriel.it [131.175.55.204]) by roll.cefriel.it with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id FJVYZ8M6; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:37:27 +0100 From: "Glauco Bigini" To: Subject: RE: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS Message-ID: <004101c09ced$9bb61ec0$cc37af83@cefriel.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3A9534F0.882833E7@lucent.com> Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: IETF SPIRITS Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: http://lists.bell-labs.com/pipermail/spirits/ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:36:26 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree with you, Alec; with "framework for the APIs" I meant a network architecture and a support protocol, but with a hard look at the compatibility with Parlay and other APIs I thinh a step ahead will be considering the use of SoftSwitch technology for the communications between SPIRITS Server (SIP Client) and SCP over the SS7 network. In this case, SPIRITS services will only need some minimal update for the SIP protocol in order to work correctly My future studies will surely focus on SIP/PINT/SPIRITS/Parlay interworking, even if it's very hard to get specific informations from the Parlay group (seems like the ITU-T....) -----Original Message----- From: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com [mailto:spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com]On Behalf Of Alec Brusilovsky Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 4:49 PM To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS Well that was a pretty blunt statement... I do think that this debate is going into somewhat disastrous area of API's vs. Protocols, which might be a totally different mail list all together. Instead, let's focus on more productive area of defining SPIRITS protocol, according to our Charter and making Parlay and SPIRITS compatible, as Simon and Igor suggested earlier. Regards, Alec Glauco Bigini wrote: > I studied the SPIRITS architecture for the last two months ando found that > the threated arguments ar important but the one of SPIRITS is a useless > fight. > > All the IT Majors are spending their money on software APIs like Parlay and > JCC/JCAT and the future of convergent services like those addressed from > SPIRITS is in these APIs. > > In my personal opinion the SPIRITS WG must provide a framework for the > deployment of Telephony APIs (based on the SIP protocol), and forget the > idea of a new protocol > > -----Original Message----- > From: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com > [mailto:spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com]On Behalf Of Simon Barber > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 1:23 AM > To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com > Subject: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS > > Parlay have defined/are defining an API to control telecom services, SPIRITS > is defining a protocol to do the same thing. Does anyone have any comments > on the relationship between these two efforts and approaches, and the > differences between them? What are the strong reasons for and against the > SPIRITS approach, and the Parlay approach. > > Simon Barber > > _______________________________________________ > SPIRITS mailing list > SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits > > _______________________________________________ > SPIRITS mailing list > SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu Feb 22 20:20:04 2001 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA02345 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:20:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DADF44338; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:20:02 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Received: from kt.co.kr (ktemail.kt.co.kr [147.6.112.223]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E121A44337 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:19:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by kt.co.kr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01121 for spirits@lists.bell-labs.com.procmail; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:16:42 +0900 (KST) Received: from kt.co.kr ([147.6.11.139]) by kt.co.kr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00914; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:16:41 +0900 (KST) Message-ID: <3A95BBA5.493EF23C@kt.co.kr> From: =?EUC-KR?B?yLLB+LDm?= Reply-To: jkhwang@kt.co.kr Organization: =?EUC-KR?B?x9GxucXrvcU=?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: faynberg@lucent.com Cc: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com, Simon Barber X-MAIL-AUTHOR: jkhwang@kt.co.kr X-MAIL-MESSAGEID: tdroeapykklspirits Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS References: <16ad01c09c65$9d9595f0$3a0514ac@sbarber2k> <3A9465AB.9497B34E@bell-labs.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------5FB07E328D439D134C2CDEDD" Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: IETF SPIRITS Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: http://lists.bell-labs.com/pipermail/spirits/ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:23:49 +0900 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------5FB07E328D439D134C2CDEDD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=EUC-KR Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit With my small knowledge about Parlay, I can say that Parlay is a 'superset' of the SPIRITS. I agree with your comment that much of the Parlay features are almost same to the PINT and SPIRITS, but Parlay has more operations such as charging, call gapping, getting call information, call leg control etc. only in the GCCS(Generic Call Control Service) as well as RRBE and CONNECT equivalents. So more general call control is possible, in which several CONNECTs could be delivered when ICW subscriber is no_answer or busy cases..(Is it possible with double INVITEs in SPIRITS ?..) I've been one of the confused people struggling with the same problem "PINT or Parlay for IN-IP interworking ?", and now I summarized myself as the above ^_^. And we choose both approaches one(SPIRITS) for commercial services and the other(Parlay) for research. Does it happen to the same case with you (your company in this mailing group) ? Sincerely, Hwang Jinkyung Intelligent Network Team Korea Telecom Igor Faynberg wrote: > I am not following Parlay, but it looks to me that the Parlay indeed > defines API for the same services as PINT and SPIRITS protocols must > support. Then, of course, it is important to ensure that the Parlay and > SPIRITS specifications are compatible! --------------5FB07E328D439D134C2CDEDD Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=EUC-KR; name="jkhwang.vcf" Content-Description: Card for 황진경 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="jkhwang.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin:vcard n:;Ms. Jinkyung Hwang tel;fax:+82-2-526-6118 tel;work:+82-2-526-6830 x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:Korea Telecom;Intelligent Network Team version:2.1 email;internet:jkhwang@kt.co.kr title:Technical Staff adr;quoted-printable:;;17 Woomyun-dong Seocho-gu=0D=0ASeoul Korea;;;; x-mozilla-cpt:;-23600 fn:Ms. Jinkyung Hwang end:vcard --------------5FB07E328D439D134C2CDEDD-- _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu Feb 22 20:56:03 2001 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA02835 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:56:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69AA24433D; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:56:02 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Received: from kt.co.kr (ktemail.kt.co.kr [147.6.112.223]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F004433B for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:55:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by kt.co.kr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA31701 for spirits@lists.bell-labs.com.procmail; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:52:50 +0900 (KST) Received: from kt.co.kr ([147.6.11.139]) by kt.co.kr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00262; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:52:49 +0900 (KST) Message-ID: <3A95C41D.B9E4F82@kt.co.kr> From: =?EUC-KR?B?yLLB+LDm?= Reply-To: jkhwang@kt.co.kr Organization: =?EUC-KR?B?x9GxucXrvcU=?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: faynberg@lucent.com Cc: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com, Simon Barber X-MAIL-AUTHOR: jkhwang@kt.co.kr X-MAIL-MESSAGEID: vtzddklsaiospirits Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS References: <16ad01c09c65$9d9595f0$3a0514ac@sbarber2k> <3A9465AB.9497B34E@bell-labs.com> <3A95BBA5.493EF23C@kt.co.kr> <3A95BF17.FF7C2973@bell-labs.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------723B79621E6EF95A99191DB6" Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: IETF SPIRITS Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: http://lists.bell-labs.com/pipermail/spirits/ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:59:57 +0900 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------723B79621E6EF95A99191DB6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=EUC-KR Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I fully agree with you.. Parlay feasibility is not as clear as PINT/SPIRITS. Jinkyung Hwang Igor Faynberg wrote: > 황진경 wrote: > > > > > > but Parlay has more operations such as charging, call gapping, getting call > > information, call leg control etc. only in the GCCS(Generic Call Control Service) > > as well as RRBE and CONNECT equivalents. > > I think they should all be examined on the subject of their > applicability. > > > > > So more general call control is possible, in which several CONNECTs could be > > delivered when ICW subscriber is no_answer or busy cases..(Is it possible with > > double INVITEs in SPIRITS ?..) > > I think so. Why not? > > Igor --------------723B79621E6EF95A99191DB6 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=EUC-KR; name="jkhwang.vcf" Content-Description: Card for 황진경 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="jkhwang.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin:vcard n:;Ms. Jinkyung Hwang tel;fax:+82-2-526-6118 tel;work:+82-2-526-6830 x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:Korea Telecom;Intelligent Network Team version:2.1 email;internet:jkhwang@kt.co.kr title:Technical Staff adr;quoted-printable:;;17 Woomyun-dong Seocho-gu=0D=0ASeoul Korea;;;; x-mozilla-cpt:;-23600 fn:Ms. Jinkyung Hwang end:vcard --------------723B79621E6EF95A99191DB6-- _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Fri Feb 23 09:32:03 2001 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA03020 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:32:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 803FA44338; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:32:01 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Received: from m2-pasarela3.airtel.es (unknown [212.73.32.197]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4A7544337 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:31:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com From: jgato@airtel.es Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on M2-SMTP3/AIRTEL(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/23/2001 03:31:35 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: IETF SPIRITS Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: http://lists.bell-labs.com/pipermail/spirits/ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:30:53 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id JAA03020 Hi all, I also agree it is a good idea to bring this issue to the mailing list. I think Igor has explained quite well what the relationship between an API and a network protocol is. Besides the technical aspects, Parlay has many business implications, since it opens the IN-like service development and service offering to new actors (small companies and independent Applications Service Providers). It is also true that Parlay is gaining support in the industry (in my opinion because the OSA API specified by the 3GPP is based on it). But, going back to the technical side, the Parlay API would allow an IP application (without a specific protocol) to receive and send INAP messages to an Intelligent Network. Thus it can be seen as a competitor to SPIRITS. SPIRITS will specify a protocol for the same purpose (an IP applicaction) can receive and send INAP messages to the IN. I guess that there are some advantages and disavantages for each option (let us think of big scale networks and not entreprise networks). Probably someone can add light into this comparison?. I do not think it makes sense Parlay API to be extended to support SPIRITS protocol (it would mean using an API to convert to a protocol -SPIRITS- which is converted to another -INAP-), but I may be wrong. Any opinions ??. Best Regards, Jorge Gat� _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Fri Feb 23 09:47:02 2001 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA03497 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:47:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0389244338; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:47:02 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@share.research.bell-labs.com Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C482144350 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:52:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by dirty; Thu Feb 22 20:51:44 EST 2001 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 32A7544380; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:38:35 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Received: from hotair.hobl.lucent.com (hotair.hobl.lucent.com [199.118.135.2]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 022CB4437D for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:38:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from bell-labs.com by hotair.hobl.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.5 sol2) id UAA24165; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:38:31 -0500 Message-ID: <3A95BF17.FF7C2973@bell-labs.com> From: Igor Faynberg Reply-To: faynberg@lucent.com Organization: Lucent Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-CCK-MCD EMS-1.4 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jkhwang@kt.co.kr Cc: faynberg@lucent.com, spirits@lists.bell-labs.com, Simon Barber Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS References: <16ad01c09c65$9d9595f0$3a0514ac@sbarber2k> <3A9465AB.9497B34E@bell-labs.com> <3A95BBA5.493EF23C@kt.co.kr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: IETF SPIRITS Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: http://lists.bell-labs.com/pipermail/spirits/ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:38:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id JAA03497 황진경 wrote: > > > but Parlay has more operations such as charging, call gapping, getting call > information, call leg control etc. only in the GCCS(Generic Call Control Service) > as well as RRBE and CONNECT equivalents. I think they should all be examined on the subject of their applicability. > > So more general call control is possible, in which several CONNECTs could be > delivered when ICW subscriber is no_answer or busy cases..(Is it possible with > double INVITEs in SPIRITS ?..) I think so. Why not? Igor _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Fri Feb 23 11:17:01 2001 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA07247 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:17:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F5F44358; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:17:02 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@share.research.bell-labs.com Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 92D4944337 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:16:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by dirty; Fri Feb 23 11:15:51 EST 2001 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 7449F44380; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:02:42 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Received: from ans.ih.lucent.com (ans.ih.lucent.com [135.2.78.5]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 21FE44437D for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:02:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by ans.ih.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.5 sol2) id KAA06391; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:02:38 -0600 Cc: jkhwang@kt.co.kr, spirits@lists.bell-labs.com, Simon Barber , haerensf@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be Received: from lucent.com by ans.ih.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.5 sol2) id KAA06282; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:02:32 -0600 Message-ID: <3A968A03.B5489DAC@lucent.com> From: Alec Brusilovsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ru,uk MIME-Version: 1.0 To: faynberg@lucent.com Original-CC: jkhwang@kt.co.kr, spirits@lists.bell-labs.com, Simon Barber , haerensf@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS References: <16ad01c09c65$9d9595f0$3a0514ac@sbarber2k> <3A9465AB.9497B34E@bell-labs.com> <3A95BBA5.493EF23C@kt.co.kr> <3A95BF17.FF7C2973@bell-labs.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------A52F586454D23BD4F1B96D64" Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: IETF SPIRITS Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: http://lists.bell-labs.com/pipermail/spirits/ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:04:19 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------A52F586454D23BD4F1B96D64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Group, Thanks everyone for the wonderful and high-spirited discussion! Let us, however, turn it into somewhat more pragmatic area: Protocol requirements are published and currently available from: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-spirits-reqs-00.txt Now is the time to focus on the SPIRITS protocol development. Also, now would be the right time to open a discussion on the ways to make SPIRITS and PARLAY compatible, if possible. (I've heard this idea initially from Frans Haerens (Alcatel Telecom) during our meeting in San Diego.) Kind regards Alec Igor Faynberg wrote: > 황진쒏 wrote: > > > > > > but Parlay has more operations such as charging, call gapping, getting call > > information, call leg control etc. only in the GCCS(Generic Call Control Service) > > as well as RRBE and CONNECT equivalents. > > I think they should all be examined on the subject of their > applicability. > > > > > So more general call control is possible, in which several CONNECTs could be > > delivered when ICW subscriber is no_answer or busy cases..(Is it possible with > > double INVITEs in SPIRITS ?..) > > I think so. Why not? > > Igor > > _______________________________________________ > SPIRITS mailing list > SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits --------------A52F586454D23BD4F1B96D64 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=koi8-r; name="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Description: Card for Alec Brusilovsky Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin:vcard n:Brusilovsky;Alec tel;fax:+1 630 713 5840 tel;work:+1 630 713 8401 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:e-Services Group;Next Generation Evolution and Architecture version:2.1 email;internet:abrusilovsky@lucent.com title:MTS adr;quoted-printable:;;IHP 1A-423=0D=0A263 Shuman Blvd,P O Box 3050;Naperville;IL;60566-7050;U S x-mozilla-cpt:;5312 fn:Alec Brusilovsky end:vcard --------------A52F586454D23BD4F1B96D64-- _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Fri Feb 23 11:38:04 2001 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA08120 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:38:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0BE344338; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:38:01 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@share.research.bell-labs.com Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 48CEB44337 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:37:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Fri Feb 23 11:35:32 EST 2001 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id CE58444380; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:24:03 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Received: from ans.ih.lucent.com (ans.ih.lucent.com [135.2.78.5]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 91F6B4437D for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:24:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by ans.ih.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.5 sol2) id KAA11023; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:24:00 -0600 Cc: bigini@cefriel.it Received: from lucent.com by ans.ih.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.5 sol2) id KAA11013; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:23:54 -0600 Message-ID: <3A968F05.701EE27C@lucent.com> From: Alec Brusilovsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ru,uk MIME-Version: 1.0 To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Original-CC: bigini@cefriel.it Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS References: <004101c09ced$9bb61ec0$cc37af83@cefriel.it> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------95474447ECF1D4114A3F490C" Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: IETF SPIRITS Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: http://lists.bell-labs.com/pipermail/spirits/ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:25:41 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------95474447ECF1D4114A3F490C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Glauco, Please see my comments inline. -Alec Glauco Bigini wrote: > ... > I thinh a step ahead will be considering the use of SoftSwitch technology > for the communications between SPIRITS Server (SIP Client) and SCP over the > SS7 network. In this case, SPIRITS services will only need some minimal > update for the SIP protocol in order to work correctly Good idea. This might be quite close to the SIN Design Team work led by Hui-Lan Lu. SIN DT Home Page: http://www.bell-labs.com/mailing-lists/ietf-sin/ > > My future studies will surely focus on SIP/PINT/SPIRITS/Parlay interworking, > even if it's very hard to get specific informations from the Parlay group > (seems like the ITU-T....) SPIRITS has an official liaison with ITU-T and never had any problems with obtaining ITU-T information. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com > [mailto:spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com]On Behalf Of Alec Brusilovsky > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 4:49 PM > To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com > Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS > > Well that was a pretty blunt statement... > I do think that this debate is going into somewhat disastrous area of API's > vs. > Protocols, which might be a totally different mail list all together. > Instead, > let's focus on more productive area of defining SPIRITS protocol, according > to > our Charter and making Parlay and SPIRITS compatible, as Simon and Igor > suggested earlier. > > Regards, > Alec > > Glauco Bigini wrote: > > > I studied the SPIRITS architecture for the last two months ando found that > > the threated arguments ar important but the one of SPIRITS is a useless > > fight. > > > > All the IT Majors are spending their money on software APIs like Parlay > and > > JCC/JCAT and the future of convergent services like those addressed from > > SPIRITS is in these APIs. > > > > In my personal opinion the SPIRITS WG must provide a framework for the > > deployment of Telephony APIs (based on the SIP protocol), and forget the > > idea of a new protocol > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com > > [mailto:spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com]On Behalf Of Simon Barber > > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 1:23 AM > > To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com > > Subject: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS > > > > Parlay have defined/are defining an API to control telecom services, > SPIRITS > > is defining a protocol to do the same thing. Does anyone have any comments > > on the relationship between these two efforts and approaches, and the > > differences between them? What are the strong reasons for and against the > > SPIRITS approach, and the Parlay approach. > > > > Simon Barber > > > > _______________________________________________ > > SPIRITS mailing list > > SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com > > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits > > > > _______________________________________________ > > SPIRITS mailing list > > SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com > > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits > > _______________________________________________ > SPIRITS mailing list > SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits --------------95474447ECF1D4114A3F490C Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Description: Card for Alec Brusilovsky Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin:vcard n:Brusilovsky;Alec tel;fax:+1 630 713 5840 tel;work:+1 630 713 8401 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:e-Services Group;Next Generation Evolution and Architecture version:2.1 email;internet:abrusilovsky@lucent.com title:MTS adr;quoted-printable:;;IHP 1A-423=0D=0A263 Shuman Blvd,P O Box 3050;Naperville;IL;60566-7050;U S x-mozilla-cpt:;5312 fn:Alec Brusilovsky end:vcard --------------95474447ECF1D4114A3F490C-- _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Fri Feb 23 22:38:01 2001 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA01385 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:38:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B87C44349; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:38:02 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@share.research.bell-labs.com Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D24644337 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:37:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Fri Feb 23 22:34:35 EST 2001 Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 4A42A44380; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:23:06 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Received: from hotair.hobl.lucent.com (hotair.hobl.lucent.com [199.118.135.2]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D847D4437D for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:23:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from bell-labs.com by hotair.hobl.lucent.com (SMI-8.6/EMS-1.5 sol2) id WAA29799; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:23:05 -0500 Message-ID: <3A972918.AA9CAA3C@bell-labs.com> From: Igor Faynberg Reply-To: faynberg@lucent.com Organization: Lucent Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-CCK-MCD EMS-1.4 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] Parlay vs SPIRITS References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: IETF SPIRITS Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: http://lists.bell-labs.com/pipermail/spirits/ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:23:04 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit jgato@airtel.es wrote: > >... >... the Parlay API would allow an IP > application (without a specific protocol) to receive and send INAP messages > to an Intelligent Network. Thus it can be seen as a competitor to SPIRITS. I would word this just a bit differently: "The Parlay API would allow an IP apllication to SPECIFY [rather than allow] the IN-related information to be exchanged with PSTN." > > SPIRITS will specify a protocol for the same purpose (an IP applicaction) > can receive and send INAP messages to the IN. Exactly, although, instead of the "INAP messages," I would refer to a subset of INAP parameters. In addition, SPIRITS would need to take care of registration, call disposition, security and other things. > I guess that there are some advantages and disavantages for each option > (let us think of big scale networks and not entreprise networks). Probably > someone can add light into this comparison?. The rules of top-down design dictate that the API be specified ahead of any protocol that would support it. > > I do not think it makes sense Parlay API to be extended to support SPIRITS > protocol (it would mean using an API to convert to a protocol -SPIRITS- > which is converted to another -INAP-), but I may be wrong. Any opinions ??. I completely agree with Jorge (as should be clear by now). And it would make sense to ensure that SPIRITS support Parlay (and, as we may hope, any similar API that may come later). One protocol can support many APIs (and, conversely, one API can be supported by many protocols). In effect, an interesting outcome of the SPIRITS work would be demonstration of SIP's (or rather a SIP subset) support of PARLAY. I also think that Alec called on us today to do just that. Could someone who knows Parlay write and I-D bringing the specifics to SPIRITS--scenarios, parameters, etc.? Igor _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits