[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