On Oct 25, 2007, at 5:09 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
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.
Yes, you're right.
For both SIP-T and QSIG tunnelling we would need to maintain backwards
compatibility with the existing standards.
Of course. However, nothing prevents us from ALSO providing a forward-
compatible and fully-negotiable solution, should we choose to do so.
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
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
