1 / 5

SPEERMINT Architecture

SPEERMINT Architecture. Reinaldo Penno rpenno@juniper.net. Changes to draft - 04. Incorporated some of R. Mahy’s changes in his draft-mahy-speermint-direct-peering-02. Included R. Mahy as co-author. Tried to align to new terminology as much as possible

briannea
Download Presentation

SPEERMINT Architecture

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SPEERMINT Architecture Reinaldo Penno rpenno@juniper.net

  2. Changes to draft - 04 • Incorporated some of R. Mahy’s changes in his draft-mahy-speermint-direct-peering-02. • Included R. Mahy as co-author. • Tried to align to new terminology as much as possible • Somewhat challenging since terminology seems spread between terminology draft -09 and use cases -02 • Put SF, LF and MF in the context of SBE, DBE, SM, LS and others • Rearranged/inserted sections under SF to put in context the notion of initiating vs. receiving peer. • New architecture picture to align with use-cases and terminology

  3. Discussions Points • No recent review/comments on the draft • List has been somewhat quiet • Draft uses direct peering as canonical example. Most of the text of the canonical example comes from direct peering–02. Should we merge the two drafts or keep them separate? • The SF, LF and MF terminology is not used in use-cases draft. On the other hand use-cases draft introduces terminology of its own.

  4. Discussions Points • Does the architecture introduced in the draft meet the requirements of Enterprises and IM providers? If not, what is missing? • Should NAT traversal (ICE and STUN) in general be discussed in the context of the architecture besides saying that SF & MF may provide such functions? • NAT traversal discussed in PRES-IM-REQ-001and requirements-02 section 3.2 • Does requirement PRES-IM-REQ-015: Services Discovery need to be discussed in the context of the architecture draft? Policy function?

  5. Discussions Points • If everybody is happy, can we proceed to WGLC?

More Related