[SIPForum-techwg] Comments on IP PBX Interop - draft 3

[Joanne McMillen]

Hi all,

I finally made it through all the discussions and have a few additional 
comments
and a few questions:

Section 8 - number 3, this sounds like an implementation directive. Shouldn't 
we change

"MUST be explicitly disabled by manual configuration" to "MUST be 
transparent"?



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 
add

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 
proxy

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 
thing. ;-)



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, 
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.



Joanne