Subject: [SIP] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-polk-sip-mlpp-mapping-00.txt

From: S_S_Dinesh/India/[email-masked]
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 14:10:27 +0530

Ken Carlberg wrote:
>
> > On your final thread, it should certainly be possible to define
> > an extension to SIP that is not useful in the PSTN; extensions
> > that are useful only within an enterprise for example should
> > be acceptable, or in the home, as well as something like MLPP
> > which is useful within a government communications system.
>
> Agreed with respect to something that may or may not be "useful".  But
the
> kicker that I'm curious about is whether the proposed specification is
> illegal (not allowed) when applied to the general public.

Here at IETF, we make protocols that run on the Internet, not the PSTN.
As there are no regulations regarding this kind of thing on the
Internet, it is not an issue for us.

-Jonathan R.

--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg                       72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (732) 741-4778
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen         PHONE: (732) 741-7244
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
SIP mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/sip

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 14:23:31 -0500

S_S_Dinesh

I just got this email (this morning) even though it likely was sent in the past
(few months old I think) -- so forgive the following please if this isn't a new
position. But in case this was just sent, I have the following response:

I'm confused (again), from the line below "...we make protocols that run on the
Internet, not the PSTN..." Isn't kinda obvious IP Protocols don't run on a TDM
infrastructure where there isn't even IP?

SIP is a Protocol that runs on IP, right?

So why does this response below want to limit SIP to a Public Internet? Is
MCI/WorldCom's Carrier-grade VoIP Network they're rolling out now considered
the 'Public Internet'? I kinda don't think so Anything Public doesn't have a
fee for services -- which I have to believe MCI/WorldCom plans on charging for
use of here.

AT&T's Broadband IP Voice network will also have a fee for service -- is that
the 'Public Internet'? I kinda don't think so again.

Will there be QoS to support SIP on what you consider the 'Public Internet'?
That's a good question. Cause if there isn't -- there likely isn't SIP.

So.... SIP isn't just for the Public Internet. SIP is for where IP exists that
can support a high QoS infrastructure and application that can run on that
infrastructure, agreed? If people don't agree with this -- I'd love to hear
where they plan on limiting SIP deployments.

So.... if SIP is for infrastructures that can support SIP -- why is this only
the Internet? S_S_Dinesh, are you only connected to a Internet? Most of us
aren't. We're connected to Private Networks that connect to the Public
Internet. Why should SIP only start between company networks?

 From another point of view -- if you, the ones that have only Public Internet
Access (via DSL or Cable) and have SIP capability from that location, want to
initiate a SIP session between yourself and someone that isn't in a Public
Internet connected location, that session doesn't work does it? Based on what
you've decreed, it cannot.

What if you were in fact initiating a session to someone's IP Phone that ran
SIP in some internal network that was connected to that Public Internet you
were? Could that session exist? If it can, my I-D can too.

If you're objecting to my extension to the Priority Header-Field, were you also
opposed to what is there now? There are 4 levels -- I'm merely suggesting a
5th. Jonathan admitted at Adelaide that ".. no one uses this now.." Great.
Except when he asked the audience (of substantial size) what they felt about it
-- it appears nearly unanimous that this was worth pursuing.

I agree I need to rewrite the I-D towards what only involves SIP (in which
Preemption is merely referenced and not mandated within it). But if there is to
be Priority within a SIP network, semantics for how and examples of where,
should be written and accepted by this WG.

BTW -- if will be actually changed within the SIP work is the addition of a
single value to an existing Header-Field, why are you so opposed to this work?
If it isn't used by you -- so what? If it is used, and in this case it is
mandatory for certain installations of very large size -- what harm did it
cause you? It should be little if any: an unused Header-Field with an
additional value.

What parts of this don't make sense to people?

>Internet, it is not an issue for us.

*************************************
"At the end of the day... the most committed win!"

James M. Polk
Sr. Product Manager, Multiservice Architecture and Standards
Enterprise Voice Business Unit
Cisco Systems
Dallas, Texas
w) 972.813.5208
f)  972.813.5280
www.cisco.com