Jonathan, > Flame away...
These are valid considerations, but it would be much easier to move SIP to draft standard for _Internet use only_. Using SIP for closed networks, for a myriad of business plans and models and B2BUA and other intermediaries is definitely not be doable, though highly entertaining to watch. Not to mention all those successors to the IN and AIN (no names mentioned here, but we know them well). So my vote is in support of what Robert Sparks has proposed, just keep the scope limited to the Internet model - see the AIB docs what that means. Lat but not least: Both you and Robert have done a fantastic job to prove that Internet-style SIP is interoperable, so you have a huge stake in it. Henry On 7/9/08 10:11 AM, "Jonathan Rosenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert, > > Thanks much for taking a stab at this. > > The first thing that probably merits discussion is whether we really > actually want to move SIP to draft. Looking through the normative > dependencies, plus the amount of work it will require to agree upon and > complete the interoperability reports, seems quite daunting. At the end > of the day, do we think that exercise will improve SIP interoperability? > Make the life of an implementor easier? Not clear. > > Are folks able and willing to commit the time to doing this? That > includes working out the implementation report contents, collecting > data, revising the specs, chasing down dependencies, etc. We've had this > item on our charter for a long time, yet typically make little progress > on it. Thats kind of a sign that, folks are not viewing it as something > that is pressing to address. > > The biggest complaints I hear about the SIP specs are: > > 1. there are so many of them; its impossible to figure out what I need > and figure out which ones are definitely implemented by other folks so > that we can interoperate, > > 2. the specs don't line up with reality - SIP barely even mentions > B2Buas and phone numbers yet these are the more common case > > 3. there are lots of interop issues - many of which were raised at the > sip forum session a few meetings ago - that need to get solved > > I don't hear too much of, "RFC3261 is confusing since it tells me to > implement the S/MIME thing and I don't actually need to". That would be > the main thing we'd get by moving RFC3261 to draft, I think. > > So I think the first step is to really figure out, what is the PROBLEM > out there today, that we are trying to solve here. is it just, "IETF > process says we should go to draft?". If thats the sole problem, I'm not > sure its worth the effort. > > Flame away... > > -Jonathan R. > > > > > Robert Sparks wrote: >> Please look over >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sparks-sip-steps-to-draft-00.txt >> >> as input into our discussion on advancing SIP to Draft. >> >> Thanks, >> >> RjS >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ 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
