RE: Simple Gateway Control Protocol -- short first comments

"Henry Sinnreich" <henry.sinnreich@mci.com> Sun, 24 May 1998 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-confctrl>
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) id NAA28924 for confctrl-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 13:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tnt.isi.edu (tnt.isi.edu [128.9.128.128]) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA28919 for <confctrl@zephyr.isi.edu>; Sun, 24 May 1998 13:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alpha.mcit.com (alpha.mcit.com [199.249.18.143]) by tnt.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA18275 for <confctrl@ISI.EDU>; Sun, 24 May 1998 13:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ndcrelay.mcit.com (ndcrelay.mcit.com [166.37.172.49]) by alpha.mcit.com (8.8.8/) with ESMTP id QAA03949; Sun, 24 May 1998 16:06:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from omss5.mcit.com.mci.com (omss5.mcit.com [166.37.204.27]) by ndcrelay.mcit.com (8.8.7/) with ESMTP id QAA14346; Sun, 24 May 1998 16:06:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sinnreich2 ([166.41.36.85]) by omss5.mcit.com.mci.com (Intermail v3.1 117 241) with SMTP id <19980524200629.ULXH8150@[166.41.36.85]>; Sun, 24 May 1998 15:06:29 -0500
From: Henry Sinnreich <henry.sinnreich@mci.com>
To: Scott Petrack <Scott_Petrack@vocaltec.com>, confctrl@ISI.EDU
Cc: huitema@bellcore.com, Arango@bellcore.com, oran@cisco.com
Subject: RE: Simple Gateway Control Protocol -- short first comments
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 15:05:33 +0200
Message-ID: <000701bd8714$a28a24e0$552429a6@sinnreich2.678.mciw>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
In-Reply-To: <4225660E.001A1237.00@il4.vocaltec.co.il>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-confctrl@zephyr.isi.edu
Precedence: bulk

The SGCP focuses on the PSTN-IP model and as such, can be quite useful if it
helps with standard mapping of both sides.
Considering however all the other IP telephony options, besides gateways,
making the gateway a component of Internet multimedia seems an attractive
choice. We may after all have IP telephony appliances using any other
Internet access such as xDSL, cable, etc.
A comprehensive model, with gateways as just another component is therefore
to be in mind.

Coming back to the gateway model: It would be useful to have a detailed
mapping to ISDN and SS7 signaling on the PSTN side and a similar mapping to
the IETF conforming side.

Scott has made some good comments to which I would like to add my 2 cents:

> SIP already drives me insane trying to remember what is a session, call,
> etc. I would be happy not to have some new terminology if the SIP
> terminology will do.
agree and would like to expand:

The SIP status code definitions and the SGCP overlap to a large degree. Why
not just re-use the SIP status codes, unless they need to be enhanced with
something that is missing ?

Some events listed:

fax tones
modem tones
continuity tones
are too much oriented towards voice-band tones and are hard to be
distinguished by untrained people.
Why not have SIP-like status codes, that can be displayed and also be
associated with a spoken message ?

Can SGCP use the same call ID as in SIP ?

Use URL's as in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-antti-telephony-url-04.txt ?

The bottom line is, on the "IETF compliant" side, how much can SGCP be
integrated into the existing MMUSIC, PINT and IPTEL family of protocols and
re-use as much from there as possible ?

Life is enough complicated as is...

Thanks, Henry

Henry Sinnreich
MCI, 901 International Parkway
Richardson, Texas 75082
Phone:  (972)498-1223
Fax:    (972)498-1449
for short messages/paging to PIN 1632988 use
http://www.mci.com/connections/interact/sendpage/sendpage.shtml
or page by phone: 1-800-PAGE-MCI/PIN 1632988