Re: draft-johnston-sipping-cc-uui-05

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





Cullen Jennings wrote:

On Nov 17, 2008, at 10:22 , Alan Johnston wrote:

Cullen,

Keith is correct - this is not about mapping ISDN parameters into SIP,
it is about mapping a very successful and popular ISDN *service* into
SIP.

Fair enough - I agree with you and Keith on this.

This is precisely my concern. By doing this we are adopting this syntax for carrying data for what will eventually be *SIP* services. Is this *really* the way we want to support those services in a native sip environment?

Once its done it will not make sense to develop a different syntax for native sip use.

If we go this way, every sip entity that needs to deal with these will need to have the needed ASN.1 encoding/decoding logic. I don't know if that is trivial to special case because I don't know what all the various formats are. But it would at least be annoying.

	Thanks,
	Paul

Until we solve this with an appropriate mechanism, SIP will not
make headway into areas such as contact centers.

And, there is a limit on the size of data - please read the draft.


Hmm - you are right that when I read it, I had missed the key part of

   Note that ISDN limits UUI to 128 octets in length.  While this header
   field has no such limitations, transporting UUI longer than 128
   octets will result in interoperability failures when interworking
   with ISDN.



And the draft says nothing about proxy inspection and routing.  I
mentioned it in my email because we know that clever implementors will
do clever things.

The draft is not making the arguments you specify.

So, if I remove the text in your comments about this being an ISDN
parameter mapping issue, the size being unlimited, and problematic proxy
behavior, I don't think there are any remaining issues.

If you have issues with the requirements in the draft, let us know so we
can clarify them.

I can easily imagine cases where customer sensitize information was transfered over this and it was going to an remote agent phone that went through another trust domain to route the call to the agent. In these cases, I think an important requirement would be to protect the draft from authorized access by intermediaries.



Cullen in my individual contributor role

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Announce]     [IETF Discussion]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Big List of Linux Books]

  Powered by Linux