RE: [Sipping] Device Identity

What's the conclusion of this discussion? Is anybody going to write any new draft for that?

-----Original Message-----
From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com]
Sent: 2006年2月19日 10:39
To: Dale R. Worley; sipping
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Device Identity

Some early version of draft-jennings-sipping-instance-id define some of
this. However, people pointed out that UUID already was capable of doing
this, and even better UUID could work for softphone too. It seemed like UUID
was a super set of everything we need so I abandoned that draft.

It seems like a UUID in the +sip.instance meets the needs people have
identified.

Cullen

On 2/16/06 11:49 AM, "Dale R. Worley" <dworley@pingtel.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 13:37 -0600, Dean Willis wrote:
>> Don't we have different underlying registries for different sorts of
>> MAC address: ethernet, token-ring, FDDI, etc.?
> 
> My belief (which may be wrong) is that all MACs are drawn from the same
> number space, which is managed and assigned by the IEEE.  If so, we
> don't need to have separate schemes for different sorts of MACs.
> 
> Dale
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
> This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
> Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP