Reported by Alec Brusilovsky.
The PIN BOF met on Monday afternoon, March 15. There were 121 registered attendees.
Alec Brusilovsky, Co-chair, opened the meeting by presenting the agenda. The proposed agenda was approved.
2. Goals of the PIN BOF
Steve Bellovin, Co-chair, presented goals and focus of PIN BOF, emphasizing "what, instead of how" approach.
3. PIN Services and Proposed Architecture
Vijay Gurbani, talked about PIN services depicted in the I-D http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-brusilovsky-pin-00.txt The questions and issues raised were who would initiate notifications and what will be the difference between PIN and PINT messages
4. PIN Services for Advanced Caller ID Delivery
Lev Slutsman presented architecture, related to Advance Internet Caller-ID Delivery Service described in I-D http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-slutsman-aicd-00.txt
5. PIN as a Services Enabler
Stephen Cohoon described architectural view on PIN as enabler of hybrid PSTN/IP services. Issues: new services opportunities, services differentiation and customer retention; protocols have to be secure, interoperable and reliable;
6. SAINT Service Taxonomy
Lawrence Conroy presented SAINT services, described in I-D: http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pint-saint-00.txt Lowrence focused on Click -to-Dial and ICW services to draw a picture of
PINT-PIN common architecture and protocols.
Steve Bellovin: Some requirements for SAINT have to be directed to SLUMS
7. Proposed WG goals
Steve Cohoon: Notification, usually, means that we need to do something further.
Issue: How do we know that call is coming from PSTN?
Issue: For loosely coupled services SIP can keep call state.
Steve Bellovin: We will NOT go down to IN and PSTN call model.
Issue: There is a need for some PSTN to IP service mapping. It is not easy to do
Issue: Are we addressing IN call model, where you have call states and you are delegating control to the PSTN network? Or we are sending notifications to the IP network and IN call model continues?
Steve Bellovin, answering the question about standardization of ICW:
"This BOF will not standardize ICW, but will help to come up with standards that others will use".
Igor Faynberg: Agree that we are not getting into PST internals, however, ITU-T has to be notified
Steve Bellovin: Can SIP handle notifications?
Jonathan Rosenberg: No, not in the current version.
Issue: Information flows from PSTN to IN and vice versa
There was a call for volunteers to generate services document - an Informational RFC, highly focused on PIN services and services descriptions.
Lawrence Conroy and Alec Brusilovsky were among others to volunteer.
Issue: If we write down a set of PIN requirement, we will see that most of them are already implemented or are easy to implement.
Steve Bellovin: We should look at other WGs to see if MEGACO, IPTEL, IMPP, etc. can provide means for Notifications. This is a good topic for discussion on the mailing list.
Alec Brusilovsky: To subscribe or unsubscribe yourself to the mailing list, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org with the single word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" (without the quotes) in the body of the message. To post to the mailing list send email to email@example.com.
A productive and well attended BOF with a lot of expressed interest from network providers and vendors. The BOF reached rough consensus that three (3) actions are needed in order to move forward with definition of PIN services and, possibly, PIN protocol:
Two action items:
- An Informational RFC, describing proposed PIN services in greater detail, to be completed in two (2) month.
- Immediately start discussion on the PIN mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) to define a set of requirements for PIN services. Deadline for the defined set of the requirements is June, 1999.
PIN For Advance Internet Caller-ID Delivery
IP Issues & Requirements
IP-PSTN Services Notification Requirements