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@xxxxxxxxxx] > 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf