|
> This is another good point that I believe we have to write down. > Simple SIP is not meant to interoperate with all the telephony features for > which 100 flavors of SS7 have been deployed (there were ~100 the last time I > looked). RFC4485 states very clearly SIP is not a replacement for the PSTN. > If you don't agree with RFC4485 "Guidelines for SIP Authors" just say so. > Our simple SIP is rather the KISS Internet approach. Making it clear what can and cannot be done (based on real implementations) would be quite worthwhile. Naturally, such an approach may not work for everyone or in every scenario. But if it can cover suitably large fraction of real-world deployments, and assist in focusing interoperability efforts on the core functionality identified, that would be an important contribution. > Leave the legacy telephony things out of it. Is this intended to define > a *new* "walled garden" of things that can talk to one another using > this set of specs but perhaps not to other things? I would hope not. > Support for E911 is in practice very important. I'd certainly agree -- but it's not yet clear to me how important *SIP* support for that will be in practice. For example, in my small medical office deployment with wired handsets, we are planning to route E911 calls to the provider, who has agreed to put location info into the ALI for the DIDs that they assign. Obviously this won't handle Mobile handsets -- but all the customer mobile handsets run cellular technologies that support 911 anyway. The likelihood that they will have any pure VoWLAN or WiMAX/VOIP handsets in the near (or even distant future) is slim to none. |
_______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP
