Generalisations (was RE: [Sip] Why not ISUP?)
"Mark Watson" <mwatson@nortelnetworks.com> Wed, 12 September 2001 01:01 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA22642 for <sip-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 21:01:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA02578; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:15:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA02546 for <sip@ns.ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:15:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from znsgs0ja.europe.nortel.com (znsgs0ja.nortelnetworks.com [47.165.25.40]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA21652 for <sip@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:15:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from qnsgs000.nortel.com (znsgs016 [47.255.64.31]) by znsgs0ja.europe.nortel.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f8C0Ekg11985 for <sip@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2001 01:14:46 +0100 (BST)
Received: from znsgd00t.europe.nortel.com by qnsgs000.nortel.com; Wed, 12 Sep 2001 01:14:07 +0100
Received: by znsgd00t.europe.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <SXFY7A6N>; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 22:45:40 +0100
Message-ID: <A3C2399B2FACD411A54200508BE39C7402E84532@zwcwd00r.europe.nortel.com>
From: Mark Watson <mwatson@nortelnetworks.com>
To: "'sip@ietf.org'" <sip@ietf.org>
Subject: Generalisations (was RE: [Sip] Why not ISUP?)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 19:06:48 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C13A23.5C2576B0"
Sender: sip-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
While we're on the topic of generalisations... I haven't been following the REFER header authentication debate, but wouldn't a generic way to authenticate/sign any header be potentially useful ? (apologies if this is the current proposal anyway) Perhaps a 'Previous-Header-authenticate:' header ? Potentially we will have other headers in future where some entity needs to vouch for their integrity. Or a generic way to encrypt a single header. The 'Encrypted-header:' header. Or do we already have that ? Just a thought. Regards...Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu] > Sent: 07 September 2001 13:50 > To: Matt Holdrege > Cc: Nathan Nelson; 'P Villa'; sip@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Sip] Why not ISUP? > > > The whole idea is *not* to make changes to the core protocol. > Leave the > core protocol generic and application-agnostic, and add > extensions that > only affect people that are interested in the particular feature. > Examples include, so far, the event model, reliable provisional, > manyfolks, refresh and a few others - if you don't care about these > features or they don't apply to your environment, you can blissfully > ignore them. This does cause us some pain now, as we have to avoid the > usual "design feature X into the protocol" trap, but yet allow enough > tools. The extension mechanisms and the now-emerging cleaned-up > generalized routing mechanism allow for this. (With hindsight, a > generalized reliability mechanism that avoided the 100rel and INVITE > special cases would have been nice, too, but that's hard to backfit.) > > Matt Holdrege wrote: > > > > At 08:34 PM 9/6/2001, Nathan Nelson wrote: > > >ISUP is a traditionally ridge protocol that has limit > capacity to adapt to > > >changes. Each time a new feature is added it takes 18 > months of debate, 18 > > >months of development, and then you get Calling Name > Delivered. If it does > > >not work in SIP send an email and next month you have an > RFC. If people > > >like it they develop to it, if not next month you have a new RFC. > > > > I don't know whether to laugh or cry. If it were that easy > to create an RFC > > we would have chaos. In reality, as SIP is further > deployed, making changes > > to the core protocol will likely be much more difficult > than updating ISUP. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip mailing list http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol > > Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip > > Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip > > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol > Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip > Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip >
- Generalisations (was RE: [Sip] Why not ISUP?) Mark Watson