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

[Richard Shockey]

There are some additional requirements coming ... soon.


>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Russell Bennett [mailto:Russell.Bennett at microsoft.com]
>  Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 12:15 PM
>  To: Carr, Steve (NSN - US/Boca Raton); ext Uzelac, Adam; Hadriel
>  Kaplan; Richard Shockey; SIP Forum Tech WG
>  Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect 1.1 timeline - strawman ..
>  
>  These are all good inputs and discussions.  I had not considered the
>  Cable MSO requirement, since it is outside my realm.
>  
>  To settle these scope and definition discussions, I think that Rich
>  Shockey should produce a scoping document so that we can start to
>  converge (at the very least) on the scope of 1.1.
>  
>  Russell
>  
>  
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
>  On Behalf Of Carr, Steve (NSN - US/Boca Raton)
>  Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 5:59 AM
>  To: ext 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