[SIPForum-techwg] Close off new comments to 1.0 effort on 12 Noon EST Tommrrow

[Eric Burger]

Let us not forget: one of the founding tenents of the SIP Forum is the  
end-to-end principle.

Some guidelines I'd like to see, unless someone squawks loudly:
So long as doing something that works SIP-SIP does not bog us down  
(i.e., we get it for free), I am all for it.
Moreover, we should not do anything in SIPconnect 1.1 that will be an  
obvious impediment to SIPconnect 2.0, which will have all of the cool  
SIP-SIP, presence, full video conferencing, and sens-o-rama content  
negotiation.
However, if it looks like we are going to rathole on something that  
just is not germane to getting SIPconnect 1.1 done, then I, for one,  
would not object to the editor or chair to cut discussion and defer  
that particular item to SIPconnect 2.0.

This does not mean we cannot have a discussion. Likewise, as far as I  
know, this is entirely a theoretical discussion, as I am not aware of  
anything we are doing in SIPconnect 1.1 that prevents SIP-SIP from  
just working.



On Sep 23, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Dan York wrote:

> Richard,
>
> I've not sent any specific comments before because many of the
> comments I did have were picked up by various parties and it seemed
> pointless to simply say "I agree".
>
> I will state, though, that I second the comments of John Elwell and
> others that my view of SIPconnect is that it should be a reference
> architecture for connecting a on-premise SIP system to a SIP Service
> Provider.  Period.  This connection may or may not be for PSTN
> origination or termination.  That is certainly one of the reasons -
> and may be the primary reason for many people - but it's not the only
> reason.  I think we're getting (slowly) to the point where there *are*
> valid cases of wanting to connect SIP systems to SIP Service Providers
> purely to link in to the existing SIP clouds.
>
> My other comment is that in section 7.1.6, I think we need to think
> through whether other SIP messages beyond INVITE and REGISTER do need
> authentication, etc. (For instance, I know of some usage of REFER
> which would seem to need that authentication.)
>
> I look forward to the discussion on Thursday.  Overall, I think the
> document is looking great.
>
> Regards,
> Dan
>
> On Sep 22, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
>
>> Tuesday September 23, 2008 in advance of our Face to Face meeting on
>> Thursday and Friday in Denver.
>>
>> This does not mean we are closing off comments in general, or
>> afterwards,
>> but we want to limit the discussion points to what we have in hand on
>> Tuesday.
>>
>> After we meet and reach some consensus on the direction of the
>> document
>> Spencer will issue a new draft and we can hopefully start the
>> process to
>> closure.
>>
>> Richard Shockey
>> Director, Member of the Technical Staff
>> NeuStar
>> 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
>> PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651
>> PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
>> <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us>
>> <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> techwg mailing list
>> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
>> Unsubscribe or edit options at:  http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
>
> -- 
> Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
> Office of the CTO    Voxeo Corporation     dyork at voxeo.com
> Phone: +1-407-455-5859  Skype: danyork  http://www.voxeo.com
> Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com  http://www.disruptivetelephony.com
>
> Build voice applications based on open standards.
> Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> techwg mailing list
> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> Unsubscribe or edit options at:  http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sipforum.org/pipermail/techwg/attachments/20080924/457c5d68/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2671 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://sipforum.org/pipermail/techwg/attachments/20080924/457c5d68/attachment-0001.bin