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

[Chandra]

Team:

>From our experience in working within the Enterprise communication world, we
often are wondering about the real benefit of SIP to us considering the
following:

1. in the enterprise PBX (or Contact center)environment
    We require event tracking and method calls initiative from our soft
phone to the PBX (Software PBX or Traditional)as well as host server
integration

	a. I have proposed to develop a Soft phone which could support for
both Media termination ( Voice ) and send data request to the server ( Web
service)to solve this requirement and we are yet to start our work on that.

2. We tested the Application servers (PBX attached) of some big vendors for
this facility to serve some of our clients. Often we realized those
functions are working in a very basic level

3. Currently we are working on a couple of projects (B2BUA with CDR and
Billing application) and Java SIP Phone integration with a big vendor's PBX
apps server... but at the end we are realizing that we need to do some
temporary work around.

5. In the enterprise domain, NAT (particularly Symmetric NAT) become a very
difficult factor and I request the Forum to go high on finding and
recommending an Interop solution (IPV6 is still miles away)

In this requirement, as an organization which has been ranked as a leader in
the enterprise telephony requirement, we could very well take part in
sharing the design, development or testing effort.

Re
Chandra


-----Original Message-----
From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On
Behalf Of Jay Batson
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:16 PM
To: SIP Forum Tech WG
Subject: [SIPForum-techwg] SIP phone task group;revisiting group scope /
activity

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