Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-yu-enumservice-sms-smpp-00.txt

Hi James, Richard, folks,
  many thanks for forwarding this. I was a little surprised that James  
didn't mention it on list. You must have beaten him to it.

(i) The formatting is borked on the draft - this makes it hard to read  
as the text clashes with/runs into the headers.

(ii) I AssUMe that the draft is intended to update RFC 4355. It should  
state that in the header, explain how it updates it (by adding a new  
sub-type), AND it should refer to RFC 4355 in the normative references.

(iii) Whilst we're at it, it IS confusing to have the Enumservice &  
URI registration intermingled throughout the draft.
The CNAM document has a MUCH clearer separation. I hope that by -07  
this will be as easy to read :).

(iv) It is NOT clear how SMPP fits with IMS (or doesn't). If it  
doesn't, then why have refs. to 3GPP IMS specs (notably 24.341 version  
7.2.0)? If it does, then I'd strongly recommend referring out to the  
3GPP architecture diagrams, and the reference points they specify - it  
made life easier in getting 4355 through its Loooooong gestation  
period in the IESG.
 From experience, you WILL need to explain how these all fit together  
- and frankly, I think that would be a very useful addition to the  
next version of the draft.

(iv) Regardless of how widely it may (or may not) be implemented, if  
you're going to specify a URI scheme, then pointing to the protocol  
spec would be good:
- The SMPP Forum doesn't exist any more.
- The SMS Forum (into which it morphed) has also shut down.
+ However, its web site still has links to the specs. In the case of  
SMPP, it is at <http://www.smsforum.net/smppv50.pdf.zip>.
? That version appears to be later than the interim version to which  
the internet draft refers.

(v) Hmm... I don't think that all of the 3GPP references are quite  
right:
- TS 23.811 should I guess be TR 23.811. That ended at release 8.0.0.  
I quote the last sentence from the TR's conclusions: "The architecture  
and flows have been transferred to TS 23.204 [5] and this Technical  
Report will not be updated anymore. For an accurate and up-to-date  
description of service-level interworking, please refer to TS 23.204  
[5]."
- Likewise for the other study. Unless things have changed, all xx.8xx  
docs are studies/reports (TR), not standards (TS).
- For the rest of the 3GPP references, they seem about right.
(If anyone has any doubts about SIP's capacity for generating gainful  
employment, please look at the 3GPP specs.
Get the 2008-03 status document from <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/2008-03/ 
 > and click on the links in that status doc to peel back the many  
layers of the onion.
I did, and it took me a good couple of hours to stop laughing. This  
explains a lot about SIP/SIPPING/SIMPLE/Bliss/...
It also explain why SMPP might be widely implemented, even if the SMPP  
spec is at risk of disappearing from the 'Net:).

all the best,
   Lawrence


 From the simple
On 5 Apr 2008, at 01:58, Richard Shockey wrote:
> draft-yu-enumservice-sms-smpp-00.txt