Dean, A good summary and proposal. I am not yet 100% convinced we need to do anything, but if we do the proposal sounds good. Just to correct one point.
> There may then be a need for a subsequent RFC or RFCs to extend RFC > 3398 (ISUP) and RFC 4498 (QSIG) for consistency with the new > model of > INFO. > I think you intended to type RFC 4497 for QSIG. However, that RFC only deals with interworking between QSIG and SIP. Tunnelling of QSIG over SIP is specified in ECMA-355 from Ecma-International. For both SIP-T and QSIG tunnelling we would need to maintain backwards compatibility with the existing standards. John _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
