RE: [Sipping] Re: draft-elwell-sipping-service-retargeting-00.txt

["Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" <[e-mail]>]

Henry,

Since this point relies on how one assumes the average person will adopt
new technology and what they do with the old technology when migrating
from one to the other, I'd prefer to leave this "ghost" buried.  This
seems rather a belief of whatever religion one subscribes to.  I prefer
to leave this to be answered by the market as the proof will be in the
adoption rate.  We don't need to discuss that further here.

Mike
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry Sinnreich [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:57 AM
> To: Michael Hammer (mhammer); Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); 'Elwell, John'
> Cc: 'sipping'
> Subject: RE: [Sipping] Re: 
> draft-elwell-sipping-service-retargeting-00.txt
> 
> Mike,
> 
> >It is a backward compatibility issue to be able to interoperate with 
> >the
> PSTN.  
> >If we ever expect SIP to become dominant we need to overcome 
> that entropy.
> 
> This statement was the object of many arguments on the list 
> and not everyone agrees with it. Actually, if I remember 
> well, a chair person stated an opposing view and it was also 
> clearly stated in recent Internet Drafts.
> 
> Can someone recall what it was that "SIP services are not an 
> emulation of the PSTN"?
> 
> Sorry, but this ghost seems to come up more frequent than Halloween.
> 
> Thanks, Henry
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Michael Hammer 
> (mhammer)
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:18 AM
> To: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat); Elwell, John
> Cc: sipping
> Subject: RE: [Sipping] Re: 
> draft-elwell-sipping-service-retargeting-00.txt
> 
> Paul, John,
> 
> We like to say that SIP can be feature agnostic, but if we 
> can't do a feature that is widely used, then that is a 
> problem.  So, I think the real question is not what must be 
> supported, but how it is to be supported.
> 
> Although the features in the PSTN are fairly well understood, 
> in many cases they are just describing desired behaviors of the call
> (forwarding) based on the state of users at the time the call 
> arrives (not registered, no answer, busy).  I don't think 
> those are unique to the PSTN as SIP users can be in the same 
> basic states.  It only gets complicated when SIP can produce 
> more possible states.  So, I think the issue here is not so 
> much defining features as it is reacting to state in the SIP 
> network and documenting that state in the signaling.
> 
> It is a backward compatibility issue to be able to 
> interoperate with the PSTN.  If we ever expect SIP to become 
> dominant we need to overcome that entropy.  I think that is a 
> burden we will just have to bear.  It is also a backward 
> compatibility issue to work with various generations of SIP 
> devices.  that is another fact of life we have to deal with.
> 
> I personally like the idea of keeping the redirection reason 
> tied to the redirecting URI added to the History-Info stack, 
> but that doesn't help those UACs that don't understand 
> History-Info.  In the end, the perfect may be the enemy of 
> the good.  Hopefully, we can converge quickly on an answer.
> 
> Mike
> 

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments of core SIP