Re: [RAI] SIPit 24 summary

[James Rafferty <James.Rafferty at dialogic.com>]

Rich,  

As a product manager for a SIP-based gateway, I can tell you it's a nightmare trying to interwork with the many variations of SIP that are out there.  We've been forced to profile SIP and also mediate between different SIP implementation options.    

I do think that industry profiles and test specifications help push implementers into some aspects of commonality.  

Communities that come to mind who are doing such profiles include:  

- SIP Forum (SIP Connect) 
- Microsoft OCS 
- 3GPP (IMS)  

I would not think the IETF wants to get into the business of specifying profiles, which would usually be done by 3rd parties such as the SIP Forum.  

On the other hand, most implementers don't seem to adhere to any of the 3 profiles I've noted, so it gets messy.   

James 

James Rafferty 
Product Line Director, Integrated Media Gateways 
Dialogic, Inc.  
15 Crawford Street 
Needham, MA 02494 
USA 

Tel:    781 433 9462
Mobile: 781 929 3895
Fax:    781 433 9268
Email:  james.rafferty at dialogic.com
Web:    www.dialogic.com
This e-mail is intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. No waiver of privilege, confidence or otherwise is intended by virtue of communication via the internet. Any unauthorized use, dissemination or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, or are not named as a recipient, please immediately notify the sender and destroy all copies of this e-mail.

-----Original Message-----
From: rai-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:rai-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard Shockey
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 1:14 PM
To: 'Dan York'; 'Dean Willis'
Cc: rai at ietf.org
Subject: 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