One comment on this thread is that we educate
people on the importance of standards and when they get to the real world
they learn that standards is not a new religion... it is always hard to
explain to them the dichotomy while making them still "believe"
that standards are important.
--Avshalom
From:
James Rafferty <James.Rafferty at dialogic.com>
To:
Richard Shockey <richard at shockey.us>
Cc:
"rai at ietf.org" <rai at ietf.org>
Date:
29/05/2009 10:17 PM
Subject:
Re: [RAI] SIPit 24 summary
Sent by:
rai-bounces at ietf.org
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
_______________________________________________
RAI mailing list
RAI at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai