[SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (SP adoption of TCP?)

[Peter Dunkley]

The danger with this approach is that you will may end up with a 
wonderful SIPconnect 1.1 recommendation that the writers/purists love 
but is unpalatable to the industry.

There needs to be a pragmatic approach taken that illustrates what SIP 
trunking should be, while still encouraging quick adoption.

Making SPs have to choose between changing their architecture or 
becomming compliant will not encourage them to adopt SIPconnect (quickly 
or otherwise).

Russell Bennett wrote:
> All,
>
> I know from trying to work with the SPs on SIP Trunking that *some* SPs are going to take a firm position on the support of UDP only.   The question that Janne poses is:
>
>         1) Are we going to define SC1.1 to be what a SIP Trunk service should be (e.g. UDP *and* TCP, among many other things)?
>         OR
>         2) Write SC1.1 to be what we think will enroll more SPs in the SC compliance program?
>
> I argue strongly against 2 - this would not be a step forward on SC1.0.  3261 is very clear on TCP support.  If SIP Forum was a commercial entity, then we would go for 2 to maximize revenue.
>
> However, SF is a standards body and it is incumbent upon us to develop SC1.1 as a *correct*, albeit pragmatic, document.  The key is the balance between pragmatism and correctness and I, for one, think that accommodating SPs that are mired in the 20th century is the wrong side of that balance.
>
> Russell
>
>