Hello again!
What happened to the Conference Call? Was it my fault? Did I talk too much (sorry about that)?
My last words were (I am not sure you could hear) there are two things to do: 1. Intel's proposal can be adopted (as "an interim" solution for specific "address resolution" problem) , but in order to be interoperable and useful it should be, in my opinion, more tide: - less flexible syntax - defined push mechanism Jim, do you mind send to you some concrete remarks? What do you think about using NAI instead? 2. In parallel, I believe, we have start working towards the more complete solution, starting from the "architectural" definition and things that we want to accomplish "as far as we can see now".
Orit Levin RADVision Inc., 575 Corporate Drive - Suite 420 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Tel: 201-529-4300 (230) Fax: 201-529-3516
Orit (and others),
If you've been around Intel much you know that when a meeting ends a certain time - it ends at exactly that time. |:-o Sorry about the abrupt cutoff, they gave us the 5min warning and then started the stop-watch.....
I agree entirely with the sentiments below. The only problem being solved at this point is the address resolution (broken record here...).
We should definitely move forward on a more general purpose solution to solve accounting/billing, resource usage etc... (which may someday be better than the simple message extentions that we're developing here).
At first blush, Diameter looks like it might have promise but it needs a number of things all of which will require more time than is reasonable to wait for inter-domain 323 address resolution.
1) It needs a IETF WG home (currently an 'individual' contribution?)
2) It needs further development for application extentions to enable all of the services we described (and will come up with)
3) It needs to get on the standards track and move through it to RFC status.
I think we would all look forward to some concrete remarks on making the current syntax less vague.
With respect to NAI, that works well for DN related naming but what do we do about PSTN resolves?....(e.g calling to PSTN from IP)
At 11:34 AM 7/9/98 -0400, you wrote:
<excerpt>Hello again!
What happened to the Conference Call?
Was it my fault? Did I talk too much (sorry about that)?
My last words were (I am not sure you could hear) there are two things to do:
1. Intel's proposal can be adopted (as "an interim" solution for specific "address resolution" problem) , but in order to be interoperable and useful
it should be, in my opinion, more tide:
- less flexible syntax
- defined push mechanism
Jim, do you mind send to you some concrete remarks? What do you think about using NAI instead?
2. In parallel, I believe, we have start working towards the more complete solution, starting from the "architectural" definition and things that we want to accomplish "as far as we can see now".
Orit Levin
RADVision Inc.,
575 Corporate Drive - Suite 420
Mahwah, NJ 07430
Tel: 201-529-4300 (230)
Fax: 201-529-3516
</excerpt><<<<<<<<
*****************************************************
*** +1-503-264-8816(voice) Intel - Hillsboro, OR. ***
*** mailto:jim.toga@intel.com mailto:james.toga@ties.itu.int ***
*** PGP keyID 36 07 86 49 7D 74 DF 57 50 CB BA 32 08 9C 7C 41 ***
*****************************************************
participants (2)
-
Jim Toga -
Orit Levin