[SIPForum-techwg] Focus on simple PSTN?

[Francois Audet]

Good, that's how I had interpreted it anyways.

Getting inputs like this is a good thing. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Bennett [mailto:Russell.Bennett at microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 15:48
> To: Elwell, John; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); Henry 
> Sinnreich; Janne Magnusson; Hadriel Kaplan; Zweig, Greg; 
> Joanne McMillen; techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] Focus on simple PSTN?
> 
> John,
> 
> Our proposal document was not an increment to SC1.0 for sure. 
>  We had a big internal debate about whether we should build 
> on SC1.0 or submit the spec that we had already.  In the end, 
> Rich Shockey resolved that one for us and asked for the spec 
> that we were using internally.
> 
> The proposal can be viewed as attempting to achieve the same 
> goals as SC1.0 - i.e. define the mechanism for SIP/RTP voice 
> connectivity between an enterprise and a service provider - 
> aka "SIP Trunking".  It is more prescriptive and attempts to 
> be a stand-alone spec - which is a different approach to 1.0, 
> however, the net result is the same.
> 
> Russell
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elwell, John [mailto:john.elwell at siemens.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:59 PM
> To: Russell Bennett; Francois Audet; Henry Sinnreich; Janne 
> Magnusson; Hadriel Kaplan; Zweig, Greg; Joanne McMillen; 
> techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] Focus on simple PSTN?
> 
> Russell,
> 
> > Everyone on this list is therefore appropriately motivated 
> to get this 
> > done - the question under consideration is whether we take an 
> > incremental approach or go for a "big bang"
> > approach.  As much as I wish for the latter, I believe that service 
> > providers and enterprises have too much infrastructure 
> investment to 
> > contemplate anything other than the former.
> [JRE] But is the Microsoft really an incremental approach? 
> Backwards compatibility with 1.0 seems to be lacking 
> somewhat. At first read it looks more like a big bang replacement?
> 
> John
>