True.. but I don't think anyone realized when we began the SIP Connect 1.1
process and MARTINI that what is a simple business issue "I just want to
plug in foo and it works." would turn into a total philosophical debate of
the SIP registration process.
This is why members of our Board insisted that the proposed informational
documents be reviewed by the usual RAI suspects here in the IETF. In
retrospect I think that was a reasonable idea.
I think the proposed PAN registry, however, is essential to make this all
work but that IMHO is utterly outside the scope of the IETF.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Shockey [mailto:richard(_at_)shockey(_dot_)us]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 10:34 AM
Lets not forget what this specification was attempting to solve, which has
been the well known boot strap problem with SIP-CUA's we have collectively
ignored since the creation of SIP, especially those that might use (dare I
say it) phone numbers.
I am not forgetting that at all. That's one of the reasons I find it so
perplexing that a draft which is supposed to make things easy and simple for
"boot strapping", has decided to mandate a nice-to-have feature which adds
complexity and is not required for boot-strapping.
Any discussion of how to improve the specification is useful but the goal
is
the expansion of SIP related services in the market. Gee sort of what we
are
trying to do with the PBX to SSP issues.
Right, and as we learned with PBX to SSP issues in SIP-Connect 1.0, not
being extremely specific and getting it right the first time will hurt you
later. ;)
-hadriel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf