Re: [Sipping] Device Identity

Hi,

I don't think there was a conclusion exactly, but Cullen recommended just
using the existing RFC for UUID.  This is what is RECOMMENDED in the
outbound draft.

While Dale is correct that MAC addresses are all in one address space, it is
way, way, way out of our scope here in SIPPING to define a new URN for MAC
addresses.  If someone does standardize a URN for MAC addresses (elsewhere),
we can certainly reference it.

thanks,
-rohan

On 3/9/06, Xia, Zhi Feng (Bruce) <brucex@lucent.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>