SPEERMINT%20Architecture

1
SPEERMINT Architecture

• Reinaldo Penno
• rpenno_at_juniper.net

2
Changes to draft - 04

• Incorporated some of R. Mahys 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 peering02. 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?