[SIPForum-techwg] SIP phone task group; revisiting group scope / activity

[Paul Kyzivat]

peter_blatherwick at mitel.com wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> Unless I'm grossly mis-interpreting what you are saying, this is really 
> about the SIP PBX interface spec, or possibly follow-on work from that, 
> not the SIP Phone spec (Jay's question).  Am I confused? 

No you are not. Clearly I was confused.

	Sorry,
	Paul

> -- Peter Blatherwick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at cisco.com>
> Sent by: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
> 15.12.06 14:41
>  
>         To:     Jay Batson <batsonjay at mac.com>
>         cc:     SIP Forum Tech WG <techwg at sipforum.org>
>         Subject:        Re: [SIPForum-techwg] SIP phone task group; 
> revisiting group scope / activity
> 
> 
> Jay,
> 
> One thing that came up during some discussion of SipConnect is that as 
> written it really only addresses connection for purposes of PSTN 
> interconnect. However its reasonable to assume that if somebody is 
> offering PSTN interconnect to multiple enterprises, or to multiple 
> branches of an enterprise, then one would like to directly route calls 
> between those enterprises and branches, without going to the PSTN. While 
> this is not explicitly excluded, the addressing rules are such that a 
> B2BUA is needed in the middle to handle the address transformations. 
> While using a B2BUA should not be excluded, neither should it be 
> mandated for such a case. So I think more work is necessary to properly 
> address that those added cases.
> 
> Also, some ambiguity remains regarding how registration works in 
> SipConnect, that could stand to be clarified.
> 
>                  Thanks,
>                  Paul
> 
> Jay Batson wrote:
>> All --
>>
>> When the original SIP Phone Task Group meeting was held about a year 
>> ago, the following items were listed by Rohan (and Francois) as 
>> specific objectives of the Task Group:
>>
>> - Specify DHCP, DNS, ENUM, Network configuration, software upgrades, 
>> configuration and management requirements
>> - Specify SIP protocol feature requirements (MWI, Caller ID, 
>> Transfer, etc.)
>> - Specify Numbering and Dialing Plan requirements
>> - Specific Presence and Instant Messaging requirements
>> - Specify Emergency, Security, QoS, Media, Codec requirements
>> - Specify NAT Traversal requirements
>> - Specify other requirements as necessary
>>
>> Francois' notes after the meeting recorded the following other items 
>> of interest from the kickoff meeting:
>> - We should focus on obviously on SIP aspects for Interop.
>> - We may refer to other documents (such as the TIA document) for 
>> other complementary aspects (acoustics, etc.). No need to reinvent 
>> the wheel.
>> - Layer 2/Layer 3 aspects are not in scope (i.e., we won't specify 
>> how to support an IP stack, or Ethernet). However, configuration of 
>> layer 2 or layer 3 parameters such as Diffserv codpoints on devices 
>> is in scope.
>> - We should not forget features that are not traditional "telephony" 
>> features, but which make SIP so attractive:
>> -- Presence, Instant messaging.
>> -- Even devices with limited capablities (like no screen) should be 
>> able to play nice by publishing presence state for example.
>> - Lots of talk about NOT defining "profiles" that define the phones 
>> themselves (not to repeat past mistakes). We should instead define 
>> profiles for certain types of features (e.g, for basic telephony, for 
>> presence, for instant messaging, for NAT traversal, etc.).
>>
>> Other relevant progress came from stuff by Markus Isomaki from Nokia 
>> (here and here), who was trying to write some stuff down.
>>
>> Since the last real work that was done in this Task Group, a couple 
>> of IETF activities have tried to take a stab at configuration-related 
>> items.  It probably makes sense, therefore, to hold off on additional 
>> configuration-related work in the SIP Phone Task Group to see what 
>> comes out of the IETF.
>>
>> However, what do people think about continuing the work on the other 
>> items?  And knowing what we know now, have we listed "enough" other 
>> items?  The basic underlying question is this:  is there effective 
>> work we can do in the SIP Phone Task Group while the IETF is still 
>> hashing out configuration-related drafts?
>>
>> IMHO, in reviewing the list archives, I think there's plenty that can 
>> go on in parallel with the config stuff at the IETF.  But we need to 
>> restart a conversation, and (potentially) find people who are willing 
>> to be co-scriveners.
>>
>> Comments, people, please?
>> -jb
>>
>> -----------------
>> Jay Batson
>> batsonjay at mac.com
>> +1-978-824-0111 (w)
>> +1-978-758-1599 (m)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> techwg mailing list
>> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
>> Unsubscribe or edit options at:  
> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
> _______________________________________________
> techwg mailing list
> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> Unsubscribe or edit options at:  
> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
>