Re: [Sip] media-security-requirements and lawful intercept

[Adam Roach <adam at nostrum.com>]

Christer Holmberg wrote:
> I don't understand this "IETF SIP" versus "3GPP SIP" thing.
>
> "3GPP SIP" is a SIP profile, including a number of SIP extensions, all
> done in IETF. There is nothing which a non-3GPP entity can't use.
>   

I said the bifurcation exists _in_ _the_ _market_. Did you follow the 
link I included? It's extraordinarily relevant. If you need more 
context: these are screenshots from the SIP account configuration 
screens on the Nokia E61:

<http://www.nostrum.com/~adam/images/too-late.png>

We can argue over whether the split is real on the technical level (and there are several reasons that it is -- for example, using SigComp without proper signaling of the intention to do so ahead of time), but it's all a moot point: products are already being designed with two distinct modes of operation.


> What is "IETF SIP"? What do I have to implement in order to be "IETF
> SIP" compliant? RFC3261? RFC3261 plus each and every extension out
> there?
>   

RFC 3261 plus proper negotiation of any extensions you choose to 
support. More emphatically: any behavior that is not in 3261 or its 
references needs to be explicitly negotiated before it is engaged. This 
applies to both clients and network servers.

Need something more clear-cut? Something you can apply empirically? 
Here's a litmus test for you: if the initial signaling between two 
network elements can't negotiate down to base SIP without any 
extensions, then it's no longer SIP.

/a


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip