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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi, 

>I am sure there are things in the draft than can be clarified, including the 3GPP use-cases, but I think it would be useful to know (for me personally, 
>and for 3GPP that wants to use the mechanism) whether the WG is willing to start this work. Nobody has objected to the work as such (you even say 
>yourself that it might be useful :), and all questions and issues that have been raised will of course have to be solved (like we always do).
>		
>
>I don't think it's completely accurate to say that no objections have been registered. Cullen's message on November 9th was a pretty clear objection.

I didn't read his message as an objection, but more as a question why we can't use a B2BUA instead. 

>Others -- like Dale -- have expressed confusion about how this mechanism is supposed to be used (and whether we're really talking about proxies, B2BUAs, 
>or something else entirely that lives outside of the valid behavior defined by SIP).

I tried to address Dale's issues in the latest version of the draft, but I may have missed something.

>Many of the other responses have been somewhat pro-forma "3GPP wants this, so let's do it" messages without any other content. I'm not discounting them 
>as meaningless, but they don't get us any closer to understanding what you're trying to do or addressing the concerns that have been expressed.
>	
>So, I think we need to back up and get everyone on the same page. The use cases you've added to the document are a good start, but I note that the 
>section headings all start with the same word.
>	
>I would suggest -- and I'm doing this as an individual, not as a chair -- that you produce a "draft-holmberg-sipcore-proxy-feature-reqs" document that:
>
>	1.	contains a concise description of the problem being solved; 
>		
>	2.	contains one or more general (non-IMS, applicable to the Internet) use cases; 
>
>	3.	contains a list of requirements on the solution; and 
>		
>	4.	[this is the most important part] contains no protocol mechanism discussion at all. 

I'll try to put something together.

But, just for my understanding: what happens if there are no non-IMS use cases?

>I think RFC5947 is a good example of how such a document can look.

Regards,

Christer