I would offer two courses of action:
1. Bring SIP to Draft the easy way (3261-bis), as it will eliminate a
bunch of options that are really proprietary extensions.
2. Bring SIP to Draft the hard way (bring all related drafts
together), as it will reduce the number of (sometimes conflicting)
documents as well as start the clock on reducing the options that just
don't go together.
My personal vote is for #2, but I do not think there is enough energy
behind the effort to get it done.
On Jul 9, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg 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
