[16:50:56] karen.s.seo joins the room [18:41:41] otmar joins the room [18:52:23] mlm.michael.miller joins the room [18:53:52] Greg Schumacher joins the room [18:54:46] saverio.niccolini joins the room [18:57:50] mlm.michael.miller leaves the room [18:58:33] mlm.michael.miller joins the room [18:59:19] is there anyone on the mic? [18:59:39] I am listening ot audio streaming but everything seems silent... [18:59:45] same here [19:00:03] ok, i am not alone then... [19:00:03] I can hear people in the room, but no one specifically at the mike. [19:00:29] there were some bits of rich just now [19:00:36] alex [19:01:34] saverio.niccolini leaves the room [19:04:35] saverio.niccolini joins the room [19:05:03] frodek joins the room [19:05:27] ray joins the room [19:06:13] Dan York joins the room [19:06:29] Dan York has set the subject to: DRINKS at IETF 73 [19:06:52] hscholz joins the room [19:07:04] what are we waiting for? [19:07:59] are you able to listen to the audio stream? [19:08:20] audio is fine [19:08:25] sftcd joins the room [19:08:34] RjS joins the room [19:08:45] ietf73-ch5? [19:09:00] RjS is passing notes into the stream [19:09:12] Doug Otis joins the room [19:09:13] AdamUzelac joins the room [19:09:20] spencerdawkins joins the room [19:09:27] yep, channel 5 [19:09:38] Bernie joins the room [19:09:42] ysuzuki joins the room [19:09:44] Hello Otmar and Saverio [19:09:46] I'll also take comments from this room to the mike [19:09:48] Bernie leaves the room [19:09:59] Unless Dan gets there first [19:09:59] otmar - how's it going? [19:10:13] RjS: You can scribe this one :-) [19:10:18] Adam Roach joins the room [19:10:20] you are missing out on the cold here in minny! [19:10:25] bhoeneis joins the room [19:10:30] david schwartz at the mike [19:10:44] You're missing out on the cold here in salon f [19:10:53] Adam, 20:10 local time here. Bottle of port open. ready to go. [19:10:56] ben joins the room [19:10:56] RjS: But I can be your backup if you need one or need a break. [19:11:40] chris.boulton joins the room [19:11:54] Jean-Francois joins the room [19:12:03] hadriel kaplan: covering LUF vs LRF [19:12:09] dan, RjS, as long as the audio is fine (it is), there is little need to type what is said. [19:12:13] pee joins the room [19:12:26] slide 1 (What's an LUF?) [19:12:38] (are the slides on the website?) [19:13:16] Please ask the speaker where to get his slides -- they're not on the IETF web site [19:13:35] s [19:13:43] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/73/materials.html [19:13:46] I just go the slides from page [19:13:56] karen.s.seo: I just downloaded them myself [19:14:43] Jim joins the room [19:15:49] dave schwartz at the mike now [19:15:53] Aha, thanks -- my web browser had not refreshed since I'd checked before lunch. [19:16:03] I'm fine with using read DNS domain as result of the LUF [19:16:19] s/read/real/ [19:16:55] please go to the mike. [19:17:01] in line [19:17:11] As long as a DNS domain unambiguously identifies the SSP where the SIP call has to ultimately end up. [19:17:27] Not how to get to that SSP [19:22:05] JF, because the LRF will give you a route [19:22:46] back to the slide: we want option A [19:22:55] David's question was different though [19:23:25] he asked to support queries that return a CIC for a service provider that does not have SIP service [19:23:37] to avoid me misguessing when you want to have a comment taken to the microphone [19:23:42] so my point is: TN => Domain name [19:23:43] please prefix such with "to the mic:" [19:23:50] rjs, ack. [19:24:05] AdamUzelac leaves the room [19:24:23] if the Service provider does not have a SIP service, LRF resolution on that domain returns nothing [19:24:43] JF, example: maybe telekom.at doesn't have any SIP ingress point. But the LRF might tell you that routing via a1.net (which has SIP ingress) works [19:24:59] AdamUzelac joins the room [19:25:19] on slide titled "Example 1:"... [19:25:25] phasing in the drawings [19:26:06] slide: why LUF answer is not next-hop [19:26:21] slide "example 2" [19:26:28] Otmar: fine example, nothing that cannot be done based on the above [19:26:33] pee leaves the room [19:26:59] ben leaves the room [19:27:00] pee joins the room [19:27:05] slide : why luf is not next-domain [19:28:21] slide: so what is LRF? [19:28:29] JF, in that example. a1.net will translate the call from SIP to TDM and use the normal interconnection to telekom.at. The originating network doesn't care. [19:28:41] (jf is afk) [19:29:30] slide: why split them out? [19:31:38] What was the question? I lost the audio briefly [19:31:53] I missed it [19:31:57] dan did you get it? [19:32:10] Q1 -- Will response to an LUF query be the same irrespective of who is asking. [19:32:29] Q2 -- Will there be multiple LUF queries along the path [19:33:00] IMHO: Q1: yes, Q2: should be no. [19:33:24] Q1: no, Q2: yes [19:34:37] and both Otmar and Greg are right: it just depends on who "owns" the LUF and what entity along the path does the LRF resolution [19:34:46] slide : example 2: real world [19:34:47] rich is overloading the mic. [19:34:49] SSPs will not have complete connections to all LUF data [19:34:59] RjS: Sorry, I missed the question as well. [19:35:13] greg - those were my questions [19:35:17] In my model (see my speermint draft), LUF will be a public I-ENUM [19:35:37] in some models, LUF is in each SSP networks [19:35:42] and I have to disagree with you [19:35:55] Otmar - yes, that's pretty much the UK LNP model too [19:38:01] can you guys hear alex ok? [19:38:08] fine. [19:38:09] Yes [19:38:40] IMHO: Q1: yes, Q2: should be no. [19:38:45] that's how I see it [19:38:47] rjs mic: can we make sure that we all agree that option A on slide 2 is what we want. [19:39:04] in line [19:39:49] imho - this is a non-issue [19:39:51] ben joins the room [19:40:01] #3 in queue [19:40:13] John Elwell @ mike [19:41:19] david schwartz speaking [19:41:37] RJS at mic [19:42:04] virtual otmar you mean [19:42:23] lots of hums agreeing w/ a [19:42:27] a few not [19:42:31] (from where I can hear) [19:42:31] hums in favor [19:42:39] phew [19:42:44] consensus for option A? [19:42:48] from where I am sitting - no hums [19:42:51] yes [19:42:54] mlm.michael.miller leaves the room [19:42:56] saverio.niccolini: yes [19:43:11] slide: introduction [19:43:20] sumanth (sp) on deck [19:44:07] I think only David Schwartz hummed against (right behind me) but not as much because he wants another option but because he doesn't like the usage of the word "domain". His view is that it should be a "terminating identity" or some word other than "domain" [19:44:44] thanks for the clarification Dan. [19:45:05] zoil joins the room [19:45:08] mlm.michael.miller joins the room [19:45:15] slide: overview [19:45:25] Jean-Francois leaves the room [19:45:32] Jean-Francois joins the room [19:46:26] david at mike [19:49:03] dan - can you take the scribe for a moment? [19:49:03] ben leaves the room [19:49:23] Jim at the mike: [19:49:24] jf said he's got it [19:49:38] Jim@mike: it was just a question for clarification [19:49:46] --- slide: Existing Use Case categories [19:50:17] (scribing especially for Otmar and Greg ;)) [19:51:03] Who is giving the presentation? [19:51:22] Sumanth Channabasappa, on behalf of the design team [19:51:23] Sumanth Channabasappa is [19:51:31] sumantha from cablelabs I believe [19:51:45] no, Sumanth represents himself at IETF like all of us [19:52:15] I am here representing the lollipop league! [19:52:28] --- next slide: Use Cases [19:52:45] (may have missed the slide transition on terminology sorry) [19:53:40] dmw.winter joins the room [19:53:47] Thank you. [19:54:07] pee leaves the room [19:54:11] -- next Slide: Use Cases (#9) [19:54:39] Hadriel Kaplan @ mike [19:54:41] pee joins the room [19:54:55] Hadriel: why are you assigning public identities to a Destination Group [19:55:03] is it not Trunk Group? [19:55:11] Sumanth: no, it is not a trunk group [19:55:43] Hadriel: the public identity is an AoR at the end of the day and you give that to a registry has nothing to do with a registry; it depends where the call came from [19:57:04] Hadriel: re-ashing the clarification from Hadriel [19:57:24] mic: Destination groups are a good concept. Ideally, these can be represented as domain names and thus be returned by the LUF [19:57:32] Ray@mike: Hadriel almost drew a destination group on his slide [19:58:07] (jf in line to repear otmar's comment) [19:58:19] Manjul M@mike [19:58:40] Manjul: the destination group is a way of aggregating various addresses [19:59:07] David@mike: this is confusing since he comes up with those terms in different contexts [19:59:34] Jim@mike: no, it is an LUF function [20:01:25] Hadriel@mike: destination groups are like sub-domains xyz.foobar.net [20:02:00] Jim@mike: questions for clarification, why do you have a TN range as a single identity [20:02:00] I've got an NMI to deal with - jf is going to continue to scribe until someone else can jump in. sorry. [20:02:00] RjS leaves the room [20:02:25] team scribing at it's best [20:02:42] not to shocking in a WG called DRINKS! [20:03:31] Jim@mike: in the routing group def, it is a logical group of RRs. Why? [20:03:49] RjS joins the room [20:03:49] Alex: it is easier to keep it for now and kick it out later if it is not needed [20:04:21] Dan@mike: why do we have the word "logical" grouping here? [20:04:46] Manjul@mike: it is a grouping [20:05:03] --- next slide (#10) [20:05:28] RjS leaves the room [20:05:33] David@mike: would like to see a separation of LUF and LRF in terms of provisioning [20:06:09] (adam, can you take over the scribbe? i'm at the mike) [20:06:11] pee leaves the room [20:06:58] pee joins the room [20:07:58] David is arguing that the protocols should in fact be separate [20:08:35] sftcd leaves the room [20:08:54] reasons include the fact that the type of data and how often the data changes is so different for LRF and LUF that they should be different protocols [20:09:19] RjS joins the room [20:09:44] JF - yes they are different, but again this does not necessarily mean you need a different protocol [20:09:45] (thanks Jim) [20:10:29] Alex: there is a need to be able to provision data elements separately [20:10:45] someone please relay: Sorry for being blunt: The focus on a "Registry" bothers me. That we need a Registry should be a result of the use-cases, and not a pre-assumed fact. The LRF could just as well be just bi-lateral communication like BGP. It is not given that every data distribution problem has to be solved by creating a Registry. [20:10:47] Hadriel@mike: you don't expect that registries have real LRF data [20:14:11] I agree with you otmar [20:14:16] JF, DRINKS is about inter-domain data transfer. Not intra-SSP configuration [20:14:28] nope otmar [20:14:34] Otmar - are you referring to LUF, LRF, or both? [20:14:35] DRINKS actually means [20:14:48] Data for Reachability of Inter/tra-NetworK SIP (drinks) [20:14:56] JF, I stand corrected [20:14:59] so -I'm back and will take back on other mike relays (sorry for the short outage) [20:15:09] (thanks Robert) [20:15:33] sftcd joins the room [20:18:42] Jabber-Wile joins the room [20:19:41] frodek leaves the room [20:21:13] slide: next steps [20:23:11] jean-francois is up - General discussion on Drinks protocol requirements [20:23:42] slide: general protocol requirements [20:25:32] slide protocol requirements for discussion [20:26:47] david at mike [20:27:41] hadriel [20:29:02] ken [20:30:39] mic: regarding SOAP/XML: Richard, you are assuming registry provisioning again. We're not yet at the stage where we actually know that we need a registry for you data exchange needs. [20:31:21] in line [20:32:04] s/you/our/ [20:32:18] sheesh, my typing sucks. [20:32:27] i got it [20:33:56] lots of "great idea" comments arond the room [20:34:34] ken : datamodel [20:35:42] who is speaking? [20:35:58] ken [20:36:01] frodek joins the room [20:36:02] cartwright [20:36:52] (hope that helps) [20:37:02] Thank you!!!! [20:38:27] david at the mike [20:40:54] Jabber-Wile leaves the room [20:41:16] ray leaves the room [20:43:10] ken was pointing at the public identity box [20:43:14] when he said "here" [20:46:30] otmar? [20:46:42] ray joins the room [20:46:49] I'm here [20:46:51] k [20:47:09] (audio is delayed a few secs.) [20:47:15] ok [20:48:26] tell rich, that what I heared from David and Hadriel sounded pretty reasonable. There is little for me to add via the low-bandwidth jabber channel. [20:49:19] alex joins the room [20:49:49] I really should change my nick to "Waldorf & Statler". [20:50:01] btw - the jabber room is now on the main screen [20:50:14] _really_ small text [20:50:48] (hi mom!) [20:50:52] 𝄐𝄐 [20:51:41] larger font? [20:51:42] RjS: Is this where we comment that if the main screen were a Mac the chair could very quickly zoom up the chat room font size using the control key and two fingers? [20:51:52] Dan York hides [20:51:52] grrr:) [20:52:17] ___ _ _ _ _ ___ |_ _|___ | |_| |__ (_)___ _ __ ___ (_) ___ ___ _ __|__ \ | |/ __| | __| '_ \| / __| | '_ ` _ \| |/ __| / _ \| '_ \ / / | |\__ \ | |_| | | | \__ \ | | | | | | | (__ | (_) | | | |_| |___|___/ \__|_| |_|_|___/ |_| |_| |_|_|\___| \___/|_| |_(_) [20:52:38] Alex isn't using a fixed-width font [20:52:40] otmar: sadly the windows machine at the front of the room butchered that. [20:52:44] No, and that did't render very well [20:52:47] (in other words, is this a fixed font display [20:52:51] hehehe [20:52:56] Adam Uzelac at the mic [20:53:12] Adam + coffee, actually. [20:54:14] Is the discussion of private data for LUF private data and/or LRF private data? [20:54:35] there shouldn't be any need for LUF data to be private [20:55:01] chris.boulton leaves the room [20:55:44] spencerdawkins leaves the room [20:56:13] ray leaves the room [20:56:26] the "Next Steps" slide from earlier is back on the screen [20:57:30] Jim leaves the room [20:58:07] Adam Roach leaves the room: Computer went to sleep [20:58:14] RjS leaves the room [20:58:14] sftcd leaves the room [20:58:18] Jean-Francois leaves the room [20:58:26] saverio.niccolini leaves the room [20:58:26] Greg Schumacher leaves the room [20:58:31] AdamUzelac leaves the room [20:58:31] pee leaves the room [20:58:44] ysuzuki leaves the room [20:58:48] Jean-Francois joins the room [20:59:11] mlm.michael.miller leaves the room [20:59:29] Dan York leaves the room [20:59:39] karen.s.seo leaves the room [21:00:16] Jean-Francois leaves the room [21:03:18] frodek leaves the room [21:06:15] otmar leaves the room [21:07:54] zoil leaves the room: Computer went to sleep [21:07:59] RjS joins the room [21:09:55] RjS leaves the room [21:14:46] dmw.winter leaves the room [21:15:13] bhoeneis leaves the room [21:15:51] hscholz leaves the room [21:16:41] Doug Otis leaves the room [21:17:10] alex leaves the room [21:18:36] Dan York joins the room [21:18:49] Dan York leaves the room [21:34:08] axelm joins the room [21:34:18] axelm leaves the room [21:48:04] bhoeneis joins the room [23:14:22] bhoeneis leaves the room