IPDR Protocol WG (http://www.ipdr.org/members/protocol) Breakout Meeting (during IPDR quarterly meeting, St. Louis) Oct. 5, 2000 This document located at http://www.ipdr.org/members/protocol/minutes/pwg_min_20001005.txt Attendees ------------------------------------ Jeff Meyer Hewlett Packard Ken Sarno Narus Alan Blount Metratech Michael Ulrich Amdocs Ellor Yacoel Amdocs Amihay Noy Amdocs Steve Cotton Cotton Management Consulting John O'neill Virtual Summit Ed Young CGS Systems Stas Khirman Narus Bert Dempsey Rate Integration Raghu Dhulipalu Convergys Allan Metts Computer Generation Adrian Newcombe ? (If I missed anyone please let me know and I will add you to the list of attendees). Discussion and actions taken: 1. We unanymously agreed that acting working group lead Jeff Meyer and acting editor Ken Sarno be named lead and editor respectively. 2. Our current Network Model focuses on communcation between an IPDR transmitter and a BSS, or between 2 BSS's. We discussed enchancing the Network Model by also dealing with communication between multiple service providers at a lower level (ie. not through BSSs). There is not enough interest to address this issue right now. 3. Someone brought up provisioning, and whether IPDR should define a standard for handling it. Jeff said that this would need to be handled by a new working group because usage and provisioning require different knowledge/skill sets, its very resource intensive, and we don't want to take away from our current list of action items. 4. On the subject of splitting off the service definitions and service specific schemas out of the NDM-U, there was agreement that this is the right course of action. Steve Cotton took the action item to split these out. In conjunction with this change, the Protocol WG agreed to create a service definition template to be included in chapter 3, that would assist people in the design of future service definitions. This will be done for NDM-U v2.5 5. There was talk about creating a compliance and certification program, but Jeff pointed out there was previously an IPDR working group that made a proposal to the Board. The Board has yet to make a decision on this. 6. We talked about the Interoperability Pavillion scheduled for Feb 12-15 2001. We agreed that this needed to be handled by a separate working group. 7. NDM-U is still a very new document. No one has much experience with implementing it or using it in a production environment. We need to have a better understanding of bugs and limitations, as well as things that work well. We agreed to collect members implementation and usage experiences with NDM-U v2.0 and create a document describing them. 8. XML Schemas and SOAP are very new technologies that may not be well understood by most readers of NDM-U. It would be helpful to provide guidance to our readers as to what XML features/coding style is recommended by IPDR. We agreed to write an XML Schema usage guide describing what is supported and recommended by the Protocol Working Group. Along with this, the we decided to create a service specific schema template, to assist people in the rapid creation of new service specific schemas. 9. There was some interest expressed in having IPDR start dealing with such issues as Roaming and Settlement, as well as possibly expanding our operations model and architecture to handle these new areas. We agreed that this should be handled in a different working group - the newly formed Architecture Working Group. 10. Scalability/Performance and Security were the two main issues raised by the IPDR Board of Directors as issues that the Protocol Working Group should try to address in the next revision of the NDM-U. We agreed that performance was more important than security. 11. To address security in NDM-U 2.5 we will write up a document that outlines security considerations. 12. To address performance and scalability in NDM-U 2.5, we will do the following: i. Create an IPDR Network Traffic Model ii. Define metrics to be used to assess and measure performance within the NDM-U framework iii. Specify the performance requirements iv. Collect performance data on a variety of platforms/implementations v. Recommend changes to enchance performance to be implemented in NDM-U v3.0 Action Items for NDM-U v2.5: date complete owner action -------- ---------- --------------------------------- 10/31 S. Cotton Create IPDR Network Traffic Model 10/31 ? Define performance metrics 11/31 ? Write Security Consideration document 11/31 ? Write up Service-Specific Schema Template 12/31 ? Write up serivce definition guidelines (joint project with BR group) 12/31 ? Finish collecting performance data 2/1 ? Make performance recommendations for NDM-U v3.0 ? S. Cotton Service definitions and service schemas out of NDM-U v2.5 (sup docs) ? ? Write up implementation experiences document ? ? Write up XML Schema usage recommendations document ? ? Specify the performance requirements that need to be met