Re: Procedural question (Re: SIP API spec)

[Carl Beame <[e-mail]>]

>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.