On Jul 3, 2010, at 7:33 AM, Alan Johnston wrote:
Many of us have worked hard on this approach over many years, and you have
been involved in this at every step of the way, in both SIPPING and DISPATCH.
For you to just try to block even the formation of a working group to
address this at this eleventh hour is just not right.
For better or worse, the AD's voice do strongly impact others thinking on the
many subjects at IETF. As an individual contributor, my review in IETF LC
pretty much my current thoughts on it. However, if I had sent that same review
when I was an AD this charter would have been very unlikely to get a fair shake
at moving forward so I just would not have sent that email while I was AD. The
ADs often can't express their own opinions because and instead have to just try
and measure community consensus and go with that even if it does not match what
they think is best. Really this is the first chance I've had to express an
opinion on this where I was not one of the RAI AD.
There discussion that has happened since my initial review has made me wish I
had said a bit more about SIP-T in my first email. I'm not really proposing
that someone should have to implement all of ISUP processing and SIP-T just to
pass around the UUI field but from a thought experiment point of view, this
does not sound like it is going to provide anything that we would not get if we
did implement SIP-T to pass this data. It seems this will have all the
limitations of SIP-T combined with the interoperability limitations of UUI in
ISDN. I want to be clear, I'm not trying to stop us from doing some work that
helps supports uses cases such as the one Laura sent to the list. I just don't
see this charter as leading to any improvement in interoperability. If we agree
that in theory we could more or less do this with SIP-T thought that is not a
practical path from an implementation point of view, then I can see a path of
some middle ground. If we don't agree on that then we proba
bly need to think about what we need to add to the charter regardless of if I
agree with or not that high lights the additional part of this problem that
makes it so SIP-T can't solve it.
The other things that has happened in this discussion is that I was assuming
that the proponents of this felt that proxies needed to modify the data. From
the email that came out it's became clear that not everyone believed that. If
there was consensus on changing this such that UUI information is not meant for
proxies, then I can start to see ways to rewrite the charter to have it reflect
what I think people want to do. If the consensus is proxies need to look at
this, I have a hard time seeing how it is not involved in call control.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf