[SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect 1.1 timeline - strawman ..
Uzelac, Adam
Adam.Uzelac at globalcrossing.com
Thu May 15 14:34:09 EDT 2008
Jamie - comments inline to your points (I cut out much of your initial
reply for readability)
Adam Uzelac
Global Crossing
Director, Converged Network Architecture and Planning
585-563-4359
<SNIP>
> With that said, here's the key areas that I think we need to revise:
>
> 1) Section 11 (Enterprise Identities): I would like to see
> this section revised to cover the registration process.
I disagree. In my view, the relationship between the Enterprise with a
IP-PBX, and a SIP Service Provider (SSP) is a "trunking" relationship.
I view a SIP Registration process as "line" side. This is consistent
with the text in the introduction of the document: "this document
defines the protocol support, implementation rules, and features
required for a predictable interoperable scenario between SIP-enabled IP
PBXs and SIP-enabled Service Providers."
In Section 12.1.1 - I challenge the notion that the Enterprise SIP Proxy
Server is considered part of the Service Provider's "Trust Domain".
>From what I see in the large number of interconnections we here at
Global Crossing have with Enterprises, most don't trust us, and vice
versa - at least from a SIP perspective. Enterprises are deploying
Session Border Elements (SBCs, ALGs, etc) before they establish any form
of SIP interconnection to a SSP.
>
> * Voicemail Deposit (from the enterprise into the service provider
> network)
> * Message Waiting Indication (from the service provider network to
> the enterprise)
> * Transfer and Forwarding scenarios (from the enterprise into the
> service provider network)
Once again, this is a "line" side feature. The specification scope
either needs to change to reflect a hosted telephony model, or remove
these as assume they are features/services of the IP PBX.
>
> If we clarify sections 11, 12 and 13 and add these key
> service interactions to the specification, I think it will
> address all the issues we are seeing in the field today.
>
> Regards,
> Jamie
>
>
>
More information about the techwg
mailing list