Re: New name for TRIP-GW

I would support TGRP with T being "Trunking" Instead of "Telephony"

Thanks,
Jayasimha


Roy, Radhika R, ALASO wrote:

> I believe that the Gateway Registration Protocol (GREP) is too broad a
> term. In fact, this registration protocol is only applicable for the
> PSTN-IP Telephony GWs for registration of the routable telephone
> numbers.
> 
> So, I propose the name as follows:
> 
> "Telephony Gateway Registration Protocol (TGRP)"
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Radhika R. Roy
> AT&T
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:42 PM
> To: list iptel
> Subject: [IPTEL] New name for TRIP-GW
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I'd like to propose a name change for the TRIP-GW (aka TRIP-LITE)
> protocol.
> 
> The reason is, as written, TRIP-GW is not actually an extension to TRIP.
> 
> Nor is it a subset of TRIP. It differs in the consolidation process 
> defined in the spec. This process, which allows an LS to keep multiple 
> routes to the same prefix, for example, is not compatible with the 
> decision process of TRIP. Its complementary, to be certain, but thats 
> not the same. If you took a normal TRIP LS and put it in front of a 
> TRIP-GW gateway, it would probably not do the right thing. It would 
> function, I think, but you would not be able to implement the 
> appropriate policies to process the information being generated by the 
> gateways.
> 
> Do people concur with this view?
> 
> If so, I would propose that we rename the protocol to the Gateway 
> Registration Protocol (GREP). I think the acronym is neat; the protocol 
> is used to search for a gateway, sort of, so grep (in the unix sense) 
> kind of works.
> 
> The protocol syntax and semantics remain unchanged. We will simply 
> indicate that large pieces of TRIP are used wholesale by this protocol, 
> referring the user to the appropriate sections of the TRIP spec.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jonathan R.
>