Re: [Ecrit] Question about phone BCP

["Winterbottom, James" <James.Winterbottom at andrew.com>]

Hi James,

Thanks for the lecture.
My belief is that if you want stuff to just work the more simple it is the better. I actually see phone BCP was a SIP profile as a consequence I don't see why the UA can't insist on putting an SDP element in there. Surely RFC3261 says that a SIP proxy has to be able to deal with delayed offer, not that a client MUST send it?

Cheers
James


> -----Original Message-----
> From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk at cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2009 4:23 PM
> To: Winterbottom, James; Cullen Jennings; ECRIT
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Question about phone BCP
> 
> At 06:23 PM 11/10/2009, Winterbottom, James wrote:
> >Hi Cullen,
> >
> >My thoughts on this stuff are that the more ways that you have of
> >doing it the less chance you have of stuff interoperating. I would
> >prefer to see the absolute minimum set that must be supported in phone
> BCP.
> 
> James
> 
> "Delayed offer" is a mandatory to implement part of SIP, per RFC
> 3261. Are you wanting to officially update RFC 3261 for this
> minimizing optimization?
> 
> Further, there are a LOT of products out there that currently do
> Delayed offer, most of this is because customers/operators have
> demanded it be this way (as they believe they have greater control
> with Delayed offer that normal or early offer).
> 
> IMO there needs to be a consensus from those operators that this is
> worth bypassing their requirement (for Delayed Offer) for.
> 
> James
> 
> 
> >Cheers
> >James
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of
> > > Cullen Jennings
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2009 11:18 AM
> > > To: ECRIT
> > > Subject: [Ecrit] Question about phone BCP
> > >
> > >
> > > So SIP allows INVITEs with or without an SDP offer. As we all realize,
> > > this adds ways to use SIP but it allowed both the fast setup when the
> > > offer was in an INVITE and it allowed SIP to gateway to many other
> > > protocols where one needed to have an INVITE with no offer.
> > >
> > > I have received complaints that Phone BCP currently profiles SIP to a
> > > subset of it by eliminating the option of an INVITE with no offer. I
> > > was wondering if there is  a strong reason that this was needed in
> > > Phone BCP.
> > >
> > > Cullen <RAI AD>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ecrit mailing list
> > > Ecrit at ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ecrit mailing list
> >Ecrit at ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>