Re: [Speermint] Problem: SIP Interoperability between Peers

["Elwell, John" <john.elwell at siemens.com>]

Daryl,

Have you seen Jon Peterson's proposal on the RAI mailing list for
restructuring (message posted yesterday)? It might be worth making your
concerns known on that thread. However, I still tend to agree that the
SIP Forum would be a better venue.

John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Shockey [mailto:richard at shockey.us] 
> Sent: 04 February 2009 17:29
> To: 'Daryl Malas'; Elwell, John; speermint at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Speermint] Problem: SIP Interoperability between Peers
> 
> >  -----Original Message-----
> >  From: Daryl Malas [mailto:D.Malas at cablelabs.com]
> >  Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 11:02 AM
> >  To: Elwell, John; Richard Shockey; speermint at ietf.org
> >  Subject: RE: [Speermint] Problem: SIP Interoperability 
> between Peers
> >  
> >  John and Richard,
> >  
> >  I do not have a preference as to where the task is taken up.  My
> >  biggest
> >  concern is that SSPs do not seem to be very involved in 
> the SIPForum.
> 
> Well if I recall CableLabs is a member of the SIPforum  :-) 
> as are several
> MSO's.
> 
> http://www.sipforum.org/component/option,com_fullmember/Itemid,195/
> 
> Your point however is well taken however. Speaking as a 
> Member of the BOD of
> the SIPforum,  we have been lacking in gathering sufficient 
> SSP support, but
> that is changing.
> 
> SIPit is still the principal mechanism to test SIP 
> interoperability but SSP
> have not been strong participants there either, nor have they 
> used their
> 'power of the wallet' to force their vendors to comply with 
> many of the
> relevant and important RFC's that would ease the 
> interoperability issues.
> There has been a everlasting discussion within the SIPforum 
> on formalized
> SIP compliance testing ( much like ASCII in RFC's) with no 
> consensus among
> the participant members. Cost to the vendor community is the 
> core problem.
> 
> >  How do we make sure there is the right level of visibility on this
> >  work
> >  in order to assure adoption across the industry?
> >  
> >  To some extent, I think this issue should go back to SIP 
> or SIPPING.
> >  For a number of reasons, SIP has a huge menu of options.  The issue
> >  facing any group on deciding what is important and what is 
> not wrt to
> >  SIP has been a very challenging one.
> 
> Again I would strongly recommend against that. Its pretty 
> obvious that the
> RAI area in general and the core SIP WG are grossly overloaded.  
> 
> The current IETF structure does not lend it to solving 
> interoperability or
> operations related issues. The IETF does not like "profiles". 
> Been there
> done that.
> 
> Discussions like these need very different formats and venues than is
> traditional in the IETF.  IMHO need real face to face 
> meetings lasting over
> several days and many more specialized Design teams to draft 
> and debate
> documents.  Not a scatter shot of 2 hour meetings we have in the IETF.
> Perhaps something more like how CableLabs operates  :-) 
> 
> Perhaps its time again for one of our RAI SIPforum Lunch 
> meetings in SF or a
> long 2 hour min RAI general area meeting where this could be 
> discussed.
> 
> Daryl, you were right to raise the issue and indeed there is 
> a problem.
> 
> >  
> >  When is SIP 3.0 coming out again?  While I joke, the 
> interoperability
> >  issues of SIP are the one issue that seems to plague this protocol.
> >  
> >  Regards,
> >  
> >  Daryl
> >  
> >  
> >  ----------------
> >  Daryl Malas
> >  CableLabs
> >  (o) +1 303 661 3302
> >  (f) +1 303 661 9199
> >  mailto:d.malas at cablelabs.com
> >  
> >  
> >  > -----Original Message-----
> >  > From: Elwell, John [mailto:john.elwell at siemens.com]
> >  > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:41 AM
> >  > To: Richard Shockey; Daryl Malas; speermint at ietf.org
> >  > Subject: RE: [Speermint] Problem: SIP Interoperability 
> between Peers
> >  >
> >  > Daryl,
> >  >
> >  > I would endorse what Richard says. In my opinion we are
> >  > making great progress with SIPconnect 1.1, but of course the
> >  > proof will be when we get it published (hopefully in the next
> >  > few months) and when it gets adopted in the market. It seems
> >  > the SP-SP problem could be addressed by a similar approach.
> >  >
> >  > John
> >  >
> >  > > -----Original Message-----
> >  > > From: speermint-bounces at ietf.org
> >  > > [mailto:speermint-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Richard Shockey
> >  > > Sent: 03 February 2009 18:20
> >  > > To: 'Daryl Malas'; speermint at ietf.org
> >  > > Subject: Re: [Speermint] Problem: SIP Interoperability between
> >  Peers
> >  > >
> >  > > This is exactly what the SIPforum is trying to do with 
> initiatives
> >  > > like SIPit and SIPconnect.
> >  > >
> >  > > I don't have much confidence that the IETF is the place to
> >  > solve SIP
> >  > > interoperability problems.
> >  > >
> >  > > If there are lessons learned certainly they need to be
> >  > reincorporated
> >  > > into the relevant RFC's but IMHO the structure of the IETF does
> >  not
> >  > > lend itself well to solving operational problems you describe.
> >  > >
> >  > > >  -----Original Message-----
> >  > > >  From: speermint-bounces at ietf.org
> >  > > [mailto:speermint-bounces at ietf.org]
> >  > > >  On Behalf Of Daryl Malas
> >  > > >  Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 12:11 PM
> >  > > >  To: speermint at ietf.org
> >  > > >  Subject: [Speermint] Problem: SIP Interoperability between
> >  Peers
> >  > > >
> >  > > >  All,
> >  > > >
> >  > > >  I regularly hear the biggest problem facing SSPs
> >  > > attempting to peer is
> >  > > >  SIP interoperability.  There are simply too many optional
> >  > > uses of SIP
> >  > > >  today.  My questions are how do we solve this problem, and
> >  > > should it
> >  > > >  be
> >  > > >  solved in Speermint?  In the past few months, I 
> have spoke with
> >  > > > different service providers, and each of them have their own
> >  > > >  *spreadsheet* describing what SIP extensions and
> >  > variables you must
> >  > > > conform to in order to peer with them.  In addition 
> to the other
> >  > > > capabilities an SBC provides, it is also becoming a peer
> >  > > SIP profile
> >  > > >  manager.  Operational teams are screaming they spend
> >  > most of their
> >  > > > time  trying to figure out what profile to use for what peer.
> >  > > >
> >  > > >  How do we solve this problem?  At Minneapolis, during
> >  > the RAI open
> >  > > > meeting, there was a discussion that the IETF does 
> not support
> >  > > > implementers with real problems.  Here is a real problem
> >  > > plaguing the
> >  > > >  industry.  How do we solve it?
> >  > > >
> >  > > >  Thoughts and feedback is appreciated.
> >  > > >
> >  > > >  Regards,
> >  > > >
> >  > > >  Daryl
> >  > > >
> >  > > >
> >  > > >  ----------------
> >  > > >  Daryl Malas
> >  > > >  CableLabs
> >  > > >  (o) +1 303 661 3302
> >  > > >  (f) +1 303 661 9199
> >  > > >  mailto:d.malas at cablelabs.com
> >  > > >  _______________________________________________
> >  > > >  Speermint mailing list
> >  > > >  Speermint at ietf.org
> >  > > >  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
> >  > >
> >  > > _______________________________________________
> >  > > Speermint mailing list
> >  > > Speermint at ietf.org
> >  > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
> >  > >
> >  >
> 
>