47th IETF SPIRITS Working Group Meeting Notes Reported by Alec Brusilovsky. Recorded by Goutam Shaw, to whom both co-chairs express their deepest appreciation for the job well done. SPIRITS WG met on the afternoon of Monday, March 27, 2000. There were 103 registered attendees. Chairs: Steve Bellovin, Alec Brusilovsky Agenda: 1. Agenda bashing - 5 minutes. 2. Pre-SPIRITS implementations with focus on architecture a. Telia/Nortel - 5 minutes. b. Korea Telecom - 5 minutes. c. NEC Corporation - 5 minutes. d. Lucent - Igor Faynberg - 5 minutes. 3. Progress of Implementation Document - Hui-Lan Lu - 5 minutes. 4. SPIRITS progress in ITU-T - Hui-Lan Lu - 5 minutes. 5. EURESCOM P909 findings relative to SPIRITS WG objectives - Gianni Canal - 5 minutes. 6. What are SPIRITS architectural components? Do we know all of them? What other components SPIRITS needs? - Discussion on Architecture - 45 minutes. Lev Slutsman starts it off with a brief introduction. 7. SPIRITS Protocol requirements - protocol discussion - 25 minutes. Alec Brusilovsky presented agenda and asked for suggestions or agenda comments. 1. Agenda Bashing Agenda accepted. 2. Pre-SPIRITS implementations: a. Nortel-Telia Service Gateway (draft-nyckelgard-spirits-pre-impl-01.txt) No questions or issues raised b. Korea Telecom ICW (draft-rhim-spirits-kticw-00.txt) Issue: limited support for mobility, static calling number c. NEC implementation of ICW (draft-ago-spirits-icw-00.txt) Issue: Q.1228 extensions used are: User-client identification process. Extended CS2 parameter. d. Lucent Implementation of OCC (draft-ietf-spirits-lucentocc-00.txt) Issue: Firewall between the PSTN and the IP network is in reality there, but is not shown on the diagram. Summary: three pre-SPIRITS implementations utilizing SIP and one - proprietary one, TCP/IP based. 3. Status of Informational RFC All the internet drafts published. Next is to compile the base material - Introduction : compile the existing services - Services - services description - End of April for initial draft RFC commitment Summary: all the internet drafts are published, next step is to compile the base material, first draft of the RFC to be published on the mailing list by the end of April. 4. ITU-T related issues: an update - ITU-T recommendation Q.1231 lists PINT related IN services. Also Q.1241 describes Q.1241 - INAP extensions are slated for IN CS-4 - SG 13 has determined an IP framework and PINT architecture - New drafted questions are IP telephony and PINT/SPIRITS related services - Excerpts from SG11 docs. Can be brought into IETF - Q.1224 is still a gray area as far as liasoning into IETF is concerned. 5. EURESCOM P909 findings relative to SPIRITS WG objectives (draft-canal-p909-pint-spirits-00.txt) - EURESCOM P909 overview - P909 example services overview - P909 architecture and requirements overview Issue: PARLAY Gateway is in the diagram. It is there because API oriented approach was adopted P909 from the beginning. PARLEY represents just one example of implementation. The goal of this report and the I-D is to collect and offer services requirements to IETF SPIRITS (and PINT). Issue: P909 architecture is available to the public and Gianni Canal will publish it on the SPIRITS mailing list. 6. SPIRITS Architectural components and protocol discussion (draft-lslutsman-spirits-interfaces-00.txt) Issue: SPIRITS protocol is between SPIRITS client and server. Remove CORBA from the diagram (it is not in the I-D) Issue: SIP with possible extensions can be used as SPIRITS protocol. There is a need for the SPIRITS protocol requirements. Issue: SPIRITS client cannot be classified as SCP. Remove SCP wording from the diagram. Issue: C interface is for registration and notification Issue: It is possible to introduce SPIRITS client as a gateway rather than an SCP ala Telia architecture. Issue: Entities B and C both can be PINT protocol. A and B both should be doubled headed. Issue: Do the Requirements Document To capture the business practices. Issue: Two very important protocol requirements: interwork with INAP and PINT. Not everything in INAP is required, just enough to interwork with it. Issue: Requirements RFC will be good starting point. Need to extend milestones part of SPIRITS Charter to include Protocol Requirements RFC. Volunteers for editorship were asked to talk to the WG chairs after the meeting. Igor Faynberg volunteered to write the detail on protocol requirements. Issue: Include in the RFC suggestions what kind of messages need to flow between entities. Summary: definite need for the Requirements Document, interworking with INAP and PINT are some of the requirements, chairs called for volunteers, Requirements RFC to be added to the SPIRITS WG milestones list. Meeting adjourned