Re: Procedural question (Re: SIP API spec)

Carl Beame <beame@ns.bws.com> Thu, 28 January 1993 03:58 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10695; 27 Jan 93 22:58 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10691; 27 Jan 93 22:58 EST
Received: from Sun.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13159; 27 Jan 93 23:01 EST
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (zigzag-bb.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA18274; Wed, 27 Jan 93 19:58:42 PST
Received: from sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17819; Wed, 27 Jan 93 19:59:59 PST
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (engmail1) by sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA20654; Wed, 27 Jan 93 19:58:27 PST
Received: from Sun.COM (sun-barr) by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA03875; Wed, 27 Jan 93 20:00:00 PST
Received: from ns.bws.com by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA18255; Wed, 27 Jan 93 19:58:23 PST
Received: by ns.bws.com (AIX 3.1/UCB 5.61/4.03) id AA04868; Wed, 27 Jan 93 22:57:56 -0500
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 22:57:56 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Carl Beame <beame@ns.bws.com>
Message-Id: <9301280357.AA04868@ns.bws.com>
To: Bob.Gilligan@eng.sun.com, ip-encaps@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sip@caldera.usc.edu, solensky@andr.ub.com
Subject: Re: Procedural question (Re: SIP API spec)
Content-Length: 1177

>Hi --
>
>	I've been thinking: most of the transition issues with all of the
>major IPv7 proposals need to deal with similar changes at the API level.
>(I had also indicated to the TUBA group at the last IETF that I'd write a
>similar spec from a perspective outside of any one of the proposals, but the
>day job tends to get in the way).
>
>	What I'd like to suggest is that this document serve that purpose:
>instead of referencing SIP specifically, we could refer to a "Better
>Internet Protocol (BIP)" and only refer to specific proposals as needed.

	One reason I have decided to back and impliment SIP/IPAE is the
fact that the "(BIP)" was a fixed length and not a veriable length address.
This is very important when implimenting in a PC-DOS environment. If we try
to use a general specification we will have to make the calling structures
more complex then they would need to be for just SIP.

>
>	Before getting down to the details on how this would affect the spec,
>I thought I'd just mention this idea first to see what the general consensus
>was..
>							-- Frank
>

Carl Beame
President
Beame & Whiteside Software Ltd.
Currently Selling SIP/IPAE aware software.