[SIPForum-techwg] Focus on simple PSTN?

[Eric Burger]

Speaking as an individual:

PLEASE take a look at Section 2.1.2 of:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-protocol-success-03.txt

We don't want to take any steps backward.  For example, we don't want  
to do the 3GPP thing of making protocol "profiles" that make it hard  
or impossible to interoperate with non-walled-garden SIP devices.

However, we do want people to be able to easily adopt the profile.   
Part of that is some level of backward compatibility and ease of  
deployment.  Do note that there is a limit of backward compatibility.   
For example, if many devices out there support TCP, and most of the  
typical devices found at the enterprise support TCP or are easily  
upgradable to support TCP, then I would see no problem of mandating  
TCP.  We don't need to support 10-year-old (or 10-year-old mindset)  
UDP-only, RFC 2543 devices.  <just my vote>

My vote (and it is only a single vote): let the IAB's advice help  
guide us.



On May 15, 2008, at 11:03 PM, Francois Audet wrote:

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