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

[Brent.Foreman at cox.com]

Speaking from an MSO perspective, Steve is correct for our current
expected offering to SMBs.  We very much have limited the scope for
trunking requirements in order to be in line with the specs here.  I
will be pleased to see the 1.1 docs from Richard when available.

B. Foreman
Cox Communications
System Development Engineering

-----Original Message-----
From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
On Behalf Of Richard Shockey
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 12:25 PM
To: 'Russell Bennett'; 'Carr, Steve (NSN - US/Boca Raton)'; 'ext Uzelac,
Adam'; 'Hadriel Kaplan'; 'SIP Forum Tech WG'
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect 1.1 timeline - strawman ..

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

_______________________________________________
techwg mailing list
Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
Unsubscribe or edit options at:
http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg