[Ietf-not43] Settlements

[Ted Hardie]

Rick writes:
> >
> > Since this was a major extension attached to something you
> > were arguing we didn't need (and to a MAY-only requirement),
> > I misread your comment as ironic.  Sorry for my confusion.
> 
> the refrence to 3.2.3 is not a MAY-only requirement

Sorry for the confusion.  Your message referred to 3.2.3 and 3.2.5;
3.2.3 is the one you've argued we don't need and 3.2.5 is MAY-only.
I did not mean to imply that you had argued that we don't need either
or that both were MAY-only.

> > Your message seemed to indicate that you expected the settlement to be
> > between service providers, rather than between a service provider and
> > the service users.  As an interprovider policy issue, it is out of
> > scope for CRISP.
> 
> the requirements was general and not specific to interprovider thus I
> believe as long as we have requirements for general searching where result
> sets require agragation we must consider a settelments mechanism.

I don't think 3.2.3 or 3.2.5 require aggregation of the result set.

Interprovider settlements are clearly out of scope for CRISP.  If you
would like to propose a requirement that CRISP protocols provide a
settlement mechanism, please do so in a way that focuses the text on
the relationship between the CRISP service provider and end user.


> you seem to be develing into implementations as you have reminded me all
> to often not to do.

Sorry that it has been "all too often", and I'm glad we're agreed on the
point now.  To put my own point in purely requirements terms: an interprovider
settlement requirement is both out of scope and presumes an architecture
not mandated by the other requirements.  It is inappropriate to require
a mechanism for settlement that constrains the choice of architecture.


> > Or have I wholly missed your point, and you are arguing we need a
> > way for CRISP to support payment between the requestor of administrative
> > information and the supplier of that information?
> 
> only for certian types of queries.

If you believe a service provider should be compensated for the work done
in answering queries, I'm not sure why you would want to limit the scope
of that compensation.

To be clear, I personally think settlement mechanisms add more cost to
this picture than they will ever recover, especially in terms of
delays in specification and deployment.  
					regards,
						Ted Hardie