[VOIPSA Best Practices] LAST CALL for comment on Best Practicesdocument structure - #2 or #4?

[Olivier GRALL]

Hello,

 

Dan, I think the #4 is not enough complete on your webpage. The interface
list doesn’t mention the dialog between 2 Call Controllers. This is very
critical. In this solution you may have a lot of interfaces to describe.
Moreover, some ideas may be present in several points and so may be repeated
all the time. 

 

I have also some questions :

- Where can we found the solution to a threat or the specific testing tool
of this threat? Perhaps it is a little out-subject. But I think in each part
the list of all solved problems should be printed with references to threat
taxonomy document.

- How the “Securing Call Control” of #2 will be treated ? BP following the
VoIP protocol used ?

 

I vote for #2 !

 

Regards,

 

Olivier GRALL

R&D Project Manager

Comverse – SBC solutions

 

  _____  

De : bestpractices-bounces at voipsa.org
[mailto:bestpractices-bounces at voipsa.org] De la part de dan_york at Mitel.com
Envoyé : mardi 16 janvier 2007 12:16
À : bestpractices at voipsa.org
Objet : [VOIPSA Best Practices] LAST CALL for comment on Best
Practicesdocument structure - #2 or #4?

 


Folks, 

I'd like any last comments people have on the structure for the Best
Practices document.  As I outlined in my note back on December 15th: 

 
http://voipsa.org/pipermail/bestpractices_voipsa.org/2006-December/000013.ht
ml 

the general consensus I'm seeing is that we structure the document around
functional areas - #2 on my list in the wiki.  Based on a lack of interest,
I'm going to kill off #1 (threat taxonomy) and #3 (tech components) which
leaves just #2  (functional) and the new #4 (interfaces, based on Eugene
Nechamkin's contribution).  The comments I am getting, both on- and
off-list, are pretty much all in support of #2. 

In the interest of moving things along, I'm going to say that 48 hours from
now... Thursday morning here in the US, I'd like to proceed with setting up
the document according to a structure - which right now looks like #2. 

IF YOU HAVE ANY FINAL COMMENTS and want to weigh in for or against #2 or #4,
please do so now so that we can bury this issue and get going! 

Thank you,
Dan 

-- 
Dan York, CISSP
Dir of IP Technology, Office of the CTO
Mitel Corp.     http://www.mitel.com
dan_york at mitel.com +1-613-592-2122
PGP key (F7E3C3B4) available for 
secure communication

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://voipsa.org/pipermail/bestpractices_voipsa.org/attachments/20070117/64419b61/attachment.htm>