Re: [dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS

I have stated specifics before as to the context for this and IETF:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg05252.html

One of the things they are explicitly talking about the Radio layer Call
control protocol interworking with SIP.  Now, if folks are saying that this
interworking between these call control messages and SIP would be the same
in the BTS as it would be in the MSC, then a pointer to the exact IMS spec
that provides all these details would be most helpful.  My guess is that
this problem doesn't require the complete functionality defined by CT1.
 It's certainly possible that there is a subset of those specifications
which could help meet their needs and I assume they would have dug through
those already). But, explicit pointers to those rather than a blanket
statement that IMS solves this specific problem would be really helpful.

 I totally agree that the proponents have a lot more detail to provide so
that folks can understand the interworking and functionality that they are
wanting that is relevant to IETF and SIP.

Mary

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Michael Hammer <
michael.hammer@yaanatech.com> wrote:

> Mary. Interworking sip with radio protocols is like saying inter working sip with ip. Makes no sense.  So far I have not seen any case for work in IETF.  This is more analogous to ITU- T attempt to screw up MPLS as far as I can tell.
>
> I asked the question before and still do not see a connection to any IETF work.  Cut out the business case and nothing has been proposed.
>
>
>
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> *From: *Mary Barnes
> *Sent: *Thursday, February 13, 2014 at 3:19 PM
> *To: *DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> *Cc: *dispatch@ietf.org
> *Subject: *[dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:28 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <
> keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
>
>>  Ericsson is not the only vendor that sees a market for small cells, but
>> the expectation is that the products are built to the completed 3GPP
>> standards will be deployed in licensed spectrum by owners of that spectrum,
>> although the boxes may well be owned by 3rd parties.
>>
>> These deployments already exist.
>>
>> I see Jim has now identified that this proposal is for licensed GSM
>> operators in licensed GSM space.
>>
>> Personally, I would suggest if you believe the operators should be
>> picking this up, you take it to 3GPP where the operators are actually
>> present. That is the only way you will see it taken up by GSMA, which you
>> will need to obtain interoperator agreements to use this (e.g. roaming,
>> shared networks). 3GPP them works with IETF on any SIP extensions needed.
>>
> [MB] One big problem with this proposal is that you must be a member of
> 3GPP/GSMA to make contributions and to participate in meetings.
>
> And, I think having to first do the work in 3GPP and then bring it to IETF
> would introduce a tremendous delay for something that's already been
> implemented/deployed.  While they are proposing to reuse elements and
> protocols that are part of an IMS network, the core issue they have is with
> interworking SIP with the radio layer protocols.  Certainly, one could
> implement all the protocols that IMS uses and then use the 3GPP based specs
> and proprietary headers to interwork with SIP in the Internet, but that
> would be terribly inefficient.
> [/MB]
>
>>
>> I would only see IETF having any direct part in this if the proposal was
>> only to use unlicensed spectrum by enterprises rather than licensed
>> operators, which Jim has negated.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>> *From:* Tim Panton new [mailto:thp@westhawk.co.uk]
>> *Sent:* 13 February 2014 14:50
>> *To:* DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>> *Cc:* Harvind Samra; Ivo Sedlacek; dispatch@ietf.org
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS
>>
>>
>>  On 13 Feb 2014, at 14:34, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <
>> keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Jumping in here, they are relevant in as much as there is no point in
>> IETF working on this if there is no known market for it.
>>
>> Usually those type of projects are published only on April 1st.
>>
>> So all Ivo is asking is for you to justify that it is worth other people
>> working on this as well as yourselves.
>>
>> Perhaps if you identified the spectrum you believe is available for use
>> in the the countries identified, that would be useful.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Keith Drage
>>
>>
>> Ivo's employer seems to see a market for small cells, but looks to tie
>> them to existing operator IMS's through
>> internet connections "owned by themselves or a partner".
>>
>> http://www.telecomlead.com/enterprise-networking/mwc-2014-ericsson-announce-small-cell-service-20233/
>> Perhaps that's an April fools joke too (I can't see any avian carriers
>> mentioned though)?
>>
>>  It isn't up to the IETF to crown specific solutions. That's the
>> market's job.
>>
>>  T.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> dispatch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>
>>
>