[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RAI] SIPit 24 summary
Yep I'm in total agreement Dean ... this is a serious flaw in the way RAI
does business.
It is very very difficult to reconcile the various SIP RFC's into a coherent
implementable specification. Dan is correct in pointing out this is exactly
what we are trying to do in the SIPforum with SIPconnect and its taking much
longer than we anticipated. We've had hours of discussions over History-Info
with only marginal consensus on what to actually recommend to the industry.
In addition we're look at the ongoing problems of implementing T38 fax in
SIP. ( NO fax is not dead)
We are NOT writing protocols in the SIPforum but the exercise of creating a
profile of SIP for PBX to SSP's also exposes additional flaws in the overall
architecture of SIP ( what little exists) that creates huge problems for
implementers, like dealing with e164 and the provisioning of data between
the PBX and the SSP in order to enable service.
IMHO the Hitchhikers guide SIP is NOT a implementable specification more of
a road map.
We need a better way ...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rai-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:rai-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Dan York
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:47 AM
> To: Dean Willis
> Cc: rai at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [RAI] SIPit 24 summary
>
> Dean,
>
> On May 28, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
> >
> > There's gotta be a better way to track compliance.
> >
> > I hate to suggest this, but is it time for "reference profiles" that
> > describe fixed subsets of functionality? I seem to recall the Java
> > people did this, with two or three levels of Java functionality; ME,
> > MIDP, CLDC, and so on.
> >
> > My sense is that while this didn't work 100%, it at least served to
> > encapsulate functionality bundles so people could talk about them.
>
>
> This is largely what the SIP Forum is seeking to do with their
> "SIPconnect" certification program, although that is only looking at
> the SIP interconnection between an on-premise system and a SIP Service
> Provider. The idea, though, is to build a profile of what are the
> necessary RFCs, etc. to support and have people test against that.
>
> Similarly, the WiFi Alliance has done this with the various IEEE
> 802.11 specs. Hide the specific details of exactly which 802.11 specs
> are supported behind broader, more user-friendly certification marks.
> (in their case)
>
> Regards,
> Dan
> --
> Dan York, Director of Conversations
> Voxeo Corporation http://www.voxeo.com dyork at voxeo.com
> Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork
>
> Join the Voxeo conversation:
> Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/voxeo http://twitter.com/danyork
> Facebook: http://www.voxeo.com/facebook
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RAI mailing list
> RAI at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai