Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> El Monday 07 July 2008 06:09:48 Paul Kyzivat escribió:
>
>> In the current world there has not been sufficient standardization. Or
>> perhaps I should say there hasn't been sufficient implementation of the
>> standards we have. Or maybe it is simply that the carriers have failed
>> to enable the implementations of the existing standards that are already
>> present in the equipment they have.
>
> Or maybe there are too much MAY/SHOULD in SIP related RFC's and no fixed
> rules. There are so many "valid" ways to do the same that finally
> interoperatibility becomes chaotic since each vendor chooses its own way
> (even if it's sounds pesimist).
In many cases the reason for multiple ways of doing things is an
inability to get agreement on a single way. That is a consequence of the
standardization game.
Paul
>> Within your domain, you can fix up however you wish. If there was wide
>> agreement on use of E.164, then it would be worthwhile for phones to
>> support it too. Then PBXs could be replaced with simply proxies. It is
>> not *hard* for the phone to convert to E.164 format. For any one locale
>> the configuration of the dial plan to do so is relatively trivial, and
>> not taxing on the phone to do. There just hasn't been any motivation to
>> do it.
>
> We'll must wait for it :)
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
