[SIPForum-techwg] Comments on IP PBX Interop - draft 3
joanne at avaya.com
Wed Jan 4 16:55:21 EST 2006
I finally made it through all the discussions and have a few additional
and a few questions:
Section 8 - number 3, this sounds like an implementation directive. Shouldn't
"MUST be explicitly disabled by manual configuration" to "MUST be
Section 9.1 - both comment and question. Based on all the discussions I
thought the group had
come to consensus on TLS being the preferred solution yet this section
merely states two
alternatives without mandating either. One should be required. My vote is
TLS. Or is the
intent here to require the SP to accomodate both? This needs clarification.
Section 9.2 - It's unclear why this is RECOMMENDED functionality - please
a few words to clarify. It starts out by saying the SP SAS is going to be
authenticated, but then goes on to explain that in reality, it's only the SP
that's being authenticated - it's confusing. I'll wait for the compelling
arguments I'm sure will occur, but right now I would see this as a MAY kinda
Section 10 - HIGHLY RECOMMENDED - we ought not to be uing terms not defined
in RFC 2119. Or, add the definition to
section 2. However, I see no need to introduce new terms.
Section 11.1.2 - number 2 - this was raised against draft 2 as well and I
think by Ernst again for draft
3 so let me just jump on board too so we are sure it doesn't get overlooked.
The PBX cannot be required
to do this except when local policy of some kind results in wanting the id
kept private. This is not always the case.
Section 11.2 - first paragraph - bit confusing - and I'd like to get rid of
UNLESS. So, how about
changing the wording to be the same as the case below it? "If the PSTN
caller has suppied their E.164 address and
did not request calling number privacy, SIP Applications servers MUST blah,
Section 11.4 - the group has still not reached consensus on this - correct?
Section 14.3 - can we please change "AS WELL AS" to "and MUST support the"
so it's more clear there are two
actual requirements here?
Section 15.1 - NOTE - perhaps this is a nitpick, but I find it strange to
have a recommendation in a note.
Can we just make this mainstream text? There's also another case of HIGHLY
RECOMMENDED in this section.
More information about the techwg