Re: [Sip] Review of draft-kuthan-sip-derive-00

[Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan at acmepacket.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Roach [mailto:adam at nostrum.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:45 PM
>
> I'll repeat the most important argument from my previous email, which
> you elided in your response: You're smart. If someone offers you enough
> money to make this work in your product, you'll figure it out.

Don't flatter me - if I was smart I'd be retired.

And my marketing brain tells me the features that need a call-id match aren't important enough to make a complicated solution worth the expense, especially if they work most of the time today because the ends aren't many domains apart if any.  Once a deployment works, the guys trying to get a new feature to work or a new box into it have to make their stuff work with the deployed systems, not the other way around.  But I fear when peering grows and calls go across more domains, that stuff won't work across them; and I think we all need voip peering to work to grow voip traffic, for all of our business models.

So I'm proposing a simple solution: Session-ID.  It's trivially simple, cheap to implement, useful for several things, incrementally deployable, and it should work for a majority of cases.  It's not a novel idea: some of us create similar things in proprietary ways/places right now to handle some of the same use-cases.

I know adding yet another header sucks, and adding more matching options for already implemented stuff is even much worse.  It's a big deal. But it would be to all our advantage I think.(?)

-hadriel
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.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