Re: [sipcore] Draft new version: draft-holmberg-sipcore-proxy-feature

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

Christer,

The reason for including something for non-IMS usage is to motivate 
those not involved in IMS to be interested in the work. I guess that a 
sufficient mass of IMS participants would work, but its harder to get 
consensus without some of the others.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 1/27/2011 8:55 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Eventhough I would be happy to see usage outside of IMS for the mechanism, I don't see why 3GPP people should have to try to invent such use-cases "by force".
>
> I think there could be usages for SIP-PBXs, but I don't have any specific requirement/use-case to put on the table.
>
> Regarding the WG and IESG, we have specified mechanisms for 3GPP before, e.g based on RFC 4083, and my understanding is that there is some kind of agreement between 3GPP and IETF. I do realize that we are not talking about a P- header in this case, but that should not change the fundamental agreement.
>
> But, if you now are saying that, unless there is a non-IMS use-case, IETF (or, at least SIPCORE) is no more going to accept doing any work for 3GPP, I really think 3GPP should be informed about that.
>
> BTW, there is an *I* in IMS also :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adam Roach [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: 25. tammikuuta 2011 21:24
>> To: Christer Holmberg
>> Cc: Paul Kyzivat; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Draft new version:
>> draft-holmberg-sipcore-proxy-feature
>>
>> [as individual]
>>
>> On 1/25/11 10:33, Jan 25, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>> I'll try to put something together.
>>> But, just for my understanding: what happens if there are
>> no non-IMS use cases?
>>
>> Then we need to try to figure out whether the inapplicability
>> of the problem is due to the fact that it is being stated in
>> overly-narrow terms (i.e., is there a more general problem
>> here that does have applicability to the Internet?), or
>> whether it is due to the fact that it only arises because of
>> a specific architecture.
>>
>> If it's the first case, we'll probably need to generalize the
>> problem to include the Internet (you know, the "I" in
>> "IETF"). Then, you'll have a much easier time getting the WG
>> to adopt it and the IESG to approve it.
>>
>> If the problem only exists because of certain walled-garden
>> architectures, then things get trickier -- both in the WG and
>> in the IESG.
>>
>> /a
>>