IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Last Call: draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config (Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration) to Informational RFC

"Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us> Thu, 08 April 2010 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@shockey.us>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 497C928C19B for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 13:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.758
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.841, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LxfyTXqG6Vkq for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 13:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound-mail-360.bluehost.com (oproxy2-pub.bluehost.com [66.147.249.254]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C504F28C16C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 13:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 19721 invoked by uid 0); 8 Apr 2010 20:12:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box462.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.62) by oproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 8 Apr 2010 20:12:05 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=shockey.us; h=Received:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language:X-Identified-User; b=akGG+o5dHh0QfMkleDLvEVXsf3u4JfTqkEWQwZO8CslduROsFY4kh93uayDbVak/XTh/tCtoDjr9RBwHZJqBPyvQmN6wLIrH4/ezRcCjeOfpflT2RQSXF49OMdfIrBZA;
Received: from pool-96-231-199-72.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([96.231.199.72] helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <richard@shockey.us>) id 1Nzy57-0004VL-9R; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:12:05 -0600
From: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
To: 'Hadriel Kaplan' <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>, 'Scott Lawrence' <xmlscott@gmail.com>
References: <430FC6BDED356B4C8498F634416644A91A79E92FC7@mail> <2AA0BE29-340C-4C8E-8541-087C9A9EE2D2@cisco.com> <430FC6BDED356B4C8498F634416644A91A79F3CBFD@mail> <1270492215.30814.227.camel@localhost> <430FC6BDED356B4C8498F634416644A91A79F3CC6D@mail> <1270497302.30814.265.camel@localhost> <430FC6BDED356B4C8498F634416644A91A79F3CCE0@mail> <04CD732B-2D7D-45E5-8ED8-A0B27E5BAB8B@cisco.com> <430FC6BDED356B4C8498F634416644A91A79F3CE40@mail> <26E13A8A-8E74-40D0-89AA-618546918ACF@cisco.com> <430FC6BDED356B4C8498F634416644A91A79F3D1B9@mail> <1270733844.4307.56.camel@localhost> <000f01cad728$8956a0e0$9c03e2a0$@us> <430FC6BDED356B4C8498F634416644A91A79F3D32B@mail>
In-Reply-To: <430FC6BDED356B4C8498F634416644A91A79F3D32B@mail>
Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-lawrence-sipforum-user-agent-config (Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration) to Informational RFC
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 16:12:00 -0400
Message-ID: <010f01cad757$bffa50e0$3feef2a0$@us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcrXILPcP1Qtj7B9Rwai+BBZziVwowABX/ZAAAmT2kAAAncqoA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 96.231.199.72 authed with richard@shockey.us}
Cc: 'Cullen Jennings' <fluffy@cisco.com>, 'IETF Discussion Mailing List' <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:12:15 -0000

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@shockey.us]
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email