PIN BOF
Meeting Notes

Reported by Alec Brusilovsky.

The PIN BOF met on Monday afternoon, March 15.
There were 121 registered attendees.

1. Opening
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

WG

--------------

7.  Proposed WG goals
Discussion

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 ietf-pin-request@lists.research.bell-labs.com 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
ietf-pin@lists.research.bell-labs.com.

--------------

8. Summary:
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:
o. An Informational RFC, describing proposed PIN services in greater
detail, to be completed in two (2) month.

o. Immediately start discussion on the PIN mailing list
(ietf-pin@lists.research.bell-labs.com) to define a set of requirements
for PIN services. Deadline for the defined set of the requirements is
June, 1999.