On Jul 1, 2008, at 1:41 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
Before going to deep on charter names and all, I think it'd be good
to discuss whether it makes sense to have a WG do this work.
The first deliverable is a revision of 4474. There are differing
opinions on the table about whats included in that revision. If all
we're going to do is update it so that its clearer that it really
doesn't work with numbers, we don't need a WG to do that. If we're
going to 'fix' it to work with numbers - I'd prefer to start with a
plausible proposal, and frankly I don't think there is one (an enum-
based solution is pure science fiction...).
It works with numbers (numeric identities) at a domain now. It can be
made to work with numbers from a gateway, IF there's some way to
convey the limitation of the identity server's knowledge about the
source of the number (and we have proposals for that). We had a rather
long thread on the topic that seemed to indicate acceptable solutions
for that whole problem space. I know, not everybody read it. And since
SIP isn't entertaining the work, nobody is going to write a draft on
it for us.
We're also pretty far from consensus so far on how/if the SBC
problems can be fixed. Along the same lines, I think we need some
agreement that this is a fixable problem, before chartering a group.
Did you read the existing solution drafts from Dan and Kai? They
seemed workable, and fairly easy to reconcile.
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.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
