[SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect 1.1 timeline - strawman ..

[Uzelac, Adam]

I was made aware of work from TISPAN (DTS/TISPAN-02040-NGN-R2) with
regards to IP-PBX to SSP registration examples.  The distinction lies
between a Enterprise <-> SSP relationship being either an UNI and/or a
NNI.  Due to there being evidence of requirements for both, I propose
that the scope of 1.1 speaks to both the UNI and NNI use cases.  Though
the UNI isn't explicitly ruled out, I had the mind-set that 1.0 (and
1.1) interface was speaking to an NNI.  

-AU

> -----Original Message-----
> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org 
> [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Uzelac, Adam
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 9:20 AM
> To: Carr, Steve (NSN - US/Boca Raton); Hadriel Kaplan; 
> Richard Shockey; SIP Forum Tech WG
> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect 1.1 timeline - strawman ..
> 
> MSOs want to offer a small IP-PBX to the SMB that registers 
> to the Service Provider (themselves I assume)?  If this is 
> true (any MSO reps out there?), then it's news to me.  IF 
> it's a valid use-case, then requirements from it should be 
> captured in 1.1.
> 
> -AU
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Carr, Steve (NSN - US/Boca Raton) [mailto:steve.carr at nsn.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 8:59 AM
> > To: Uzelac, Adam; Hadriel Kaplan; Richard Shockey; SIP Forum Tech WG
> > Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect 1.1 timeline - strawman ..
> > 
> > In our experience, both are required.
> > 
> > Medium/large enterprises have their own IP address space, and so a 
> > trunking model is appropriate.
> > 
> > On the other hand, our customers (eg the Cable MSOs) want 
> to address 
> > the SMB market where they are both the voice and data 
> provider. On the 
> > data side, they do not have the infrastructure to offer static IP 
> > addresses, and use the same PPOE/DHCP mechanisms as they use for 
> > residential to assign dynamic IP addresses. Now they want offer a 
> > small IP-PBX such as the Linksys SPA 9000 to the SMB, and 
> it will need 
> > to register with the Service provider to provide the 
> address binding.
> > 
> > Steve
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org 
> [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
> > On Behalf Of ext Uzelac, Adam
> > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:45 PM
> > To: Hadriel Kaplan; Jamie Palmer; Richard Shockey; SIP Forum Tech WG
> > Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect 1.1 timeline - strawman ..
> > 
> > We both can't be right. It's no fun that way!!  ;) 
> Seriously, I think 
> > that we need further definition of the interface being 
> defined here.  
> > In my eyes, it's more the SIP-based IP-PBX to the SIP-based SP for 
> > PSTN access.  The endpoints on the enterprise's premise 
> will register 
> > to the IP-PBX.  The registration across the SIP Interface being 
> > defined in the 1.0 is not directly tied to PSTN access.
> > 
> > I have no problem with changing the scope of the document.  
> I am just 
> > looking for consistency, or looking to prevent inconsistencies.
> > 
> > -AU
> > 
> > PS - would it be worth a live pow-wow on this subject at 
> the next IETF 
> > (Dublin)?  It seems like a common set of characters 
> participating in 
> > both groups.  Just throwing that out there.
> > I bet that Richard would buy a round or two!  ;)
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:HKaplan at acmepacket.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:18 PM
> > > To: Uzelac, Adam; Jamie Palmer; Richard Shockey; SIP Forum Tech WG
> > > Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect 1.1 timeline - 
> strawman ..
> > > 
> > > Hey Adam,
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
> > > [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
> > > > On Behalf Of Uzelac, Adam
> > > > >
> > > > > 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."
> > > 
> > > I think you're actually both right. :)  There are providers which 
> > > treat their Enterprise customers as "line side", and many
> > that treat
> > > it as "trunk side".  The difference I've seen so far is 
> around the 
> > > size of the Enterprises being connected
> > > - for medium/large Enterprises, it's a defined trunk; for 
> SMB's the 
> > > provider treats them as a line side to some degree,
> > specifically with
> > > a Registration process.  The needs of those two markets are
> > different,
> > > for both provider and enterprise, methinks.
> > > 
> > > -hadriel
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>