ATIS/SIP Forum IP-NNI Task Force

Hi Ranjit,

I think there are two main standards development paths available to you for adding device information to RCD PASSporTs.

One way you could investigate adding device information to an RCD PASSporT is to write an Internet-Draft (I-D) describing how this would be done for review and consideration for adoption by the IETF STIR working group which, if the process was successful, would ultimately obsolete and replace (i.e., update) the existing RCD RFC.

ATIS/SIP Forum JTF on IP-NNI is the group that defined how to use STIR PASSporTs defined in the IETF.  E.g., ATIS-1000094v2 is the main ATIS standard defining how to use RCD PASSporTs.   In ATIS, instead of an Internet-Draft, you can write an Issue Statement.  The Issue Statement would describe why you think including device information in a new standard (or a v3 update to ATIS-1000094), should be considered.  The Issue Statement will be added to an IP-NNI meeting agenda and then be reviewed by the IP-NNI TF who will decide whether and how to proceed.

I invite Mary Barnes, et al, to correct me if I'm leading you astray.  Anna Karditzas and/or Jackie Wohlgemuth with ATIS can help you with the process for submitting an Issue Statement for consideration and review.

Lastly, because PASSporTs are extensible, if you have an RCD use case which would benefit from device information, a non-standard implementation is also possible.  I know there are non-standard implementations of RCD in operation in the wild today, so it is another path available to you, albeit not a standards-based path.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

Hi Ranjit,

I think there are two main standards development paths available to you for adding device information to RCD PASSporTs.

One way you could investigate adding device information to an RCD PASSporT is to write an Internet-Draft (I-D) describing how this would be done for review and consideration for adoption by the IETF STIR working group which, if the process was successful, would ultimately obsolete and replace (i.e., update) the existing RCD RFC.

ATIS/SIP Forum JTF on IP-NNI is the group that defined how to use STIR PASSporTs defined in the IETF.  E.g., ATIS-1000094v2 is the main ATIS standard defining how to use RCD PASSporTs.   In ATIS, instead of an Internet-Draft, you can write an Issue Statement.  The Issue Statement would describe why you think including device information in a new standard (or a v3 update to ATIS-1000094), should be considered.  The Issue Statement will be added to an IP-NNI meeting agenda and then be reviewed by the IP-NNI TF who will decide whether and how to proceed.

I invite Mary Barnes, et al, to correct me if I'm leading you astray.  Anna Karditzas and/or Jackie Wohlgemuth with ATIS can help you with the process for submitting an Issue Statement for consideration and review.

Lastly, because PASSporTs are extensible, if you have an RCD use case which would benefit from device information, a non-standard implementation is also possible.  I know there are non-standard implementations of RCD in operation in the wild today, so it is another path available to you, albeit not a standards-based path.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

Hi Ranjit,

I think there are two main standards development paths available to you for adding device information to RCD PASSporTs.

One way you could investigate adding device information to an RCD PASSporT is to write an Internet-Draft (I-D) describing how this would be done for review and consideration for adoption by the IETF STIR working group which, if the process was successful, would ultimately obsolete and replace (i.e., update) the existing RCD RFC.

ATIS/SIP Forum JTF on IP-NNI is the group that defined how to use STIR PASSporTs defined in the IETF.  E.g., ATIS-1000094v2 is the main ATIS standard defining how to use RCD PASSporTs.   In ATIS, instead of an Internet-Draft, you can write an Issue Statement.  The Issue Statement would describe why you think including device information in a new standard (or a v3 update to ATIS-1000094), should be considered.  The Issue Statement will be added to an IP-NNI meeting agenda and then be reviewed by the IP-NNI TF who will decide whether and how to proceed.

I invite Mary Barnes, et al, to correct me if I'm leading you astray.  Anna Karditzas and/or Jackie Wohlgemuth with ATIS can help you with the process for submitting an Issue Statement for consideration and review.

Lastly, because PASSporTs are extensible, if you have an RCD use case which would benefit from device information, a non-standard implementation is also possible.  I know there are non-standard implementations of RCD in operation in the wild today, so it is another path available to you, albeit not a standards-based path.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

So what information on the device?

Hi Ranjit,

I think there are two main standards development paths available to you for adding device information to RCD PASSporTs.

One way you could investigate adding device information to an RCD PASSporT is to write an Internet-Draft (I-D) describing how this would be done for review and consideration for adoption by the IETF STIR working group which, if the process was successful, would ultimately obsolete and replace (i.e., update) the existing RCD RFC.

ATIS/SIP Forum JTF on IP-NNI is the group that defined how to use STIR PASSporTs defined in the IETF.  E.g., ATIS-1000094v2 is the main ATIS standard defining how to use RCD PASSporTs.   In ATIS, instead of an Internet-Draft, you can write an Issue Statement.  The Issue Statement would describe why you think including device information in a new standard (or a v3 update to ATIS-1000094), should be considered.  The Issue Statement will be added to an IP-NNI meeting agenda and then be reviewed by the IP-NNI TF who will decide whether and how to proceed.

I invite Mary Barnes, et al, to correct me if I'm leading you astray.  Anna Karditzas and/or Jackie Wohlgemuth with ATIS can help you with the process for submitting an Issue Statement for consideration and review.

Lastly, because PASSporTs are extensible, if you have an RCD use case which would benefit from device information, a non-standard implementation is also possible.  I know there are non-standard implementations of RCD in operation in the wild today, so it is another path available to you, albeit not a standards-based path.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,