Subject: RE: [SIP] SIP ISUP MIME type

From: "Mo Zonoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 11:19:33 -0400

Alex, I was under the impression that once ISO standards are developed
national variation are withdrawn. Do we really want to encourage each
country or region have their own specific version? If that is the case why
bother with ISO?

Mo Zonoun 

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Hardisty [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 7:57 AM
To: sip
Cc: e-tc32-tg17; e-tc32-tg14
Subject: RE: [SIP] SIP ISUP MIME type

Lyndon Ong (Nortel) wrote (on the IETF SIP WG mailing list):

> ...are there any other comments on draft-ietf-sip-isup-mime-01.txt?

To my knowledge the list of QSIG versions is incorrect. At present there are
3 different versions of QSIG. I have listed them below, each followed by my
proposed value for the version parameter:

- the first European version (1992)         : euro
- the first International version (1995)    : iso
- the internationally aligned version (1997): global

I assume that it is possible to extend the list in the future if necessary.
It would be useful, for example, to be able to define further versions (for
example, "globalN" where N is a digit indicating successive versions) should
that prove necessary. Note that I am neither stating nor advocating that
there will be future versions ... just catering for the possibility!!

--
Alex Hardisty
PQM Consultants

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

---

From: "Alex Hardisty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 09:37:30 +0100

Mo Zonoun wrote:

> I was under the impression that once ISO standards are developed
> national variation are withdrawn. Do we really want to encourage
> each country or region have their own specific version? If that is
> the case why bother with ISO?

That is true and I wasn't suggesting anything different.

From the point of view of transporting QSIG information in SIP messages,
however, there are implementations of each of the variants in the field and
if it is necessary to indicate the version being transported then this
should be done correctly. The current Internet Draft (I-D) lists two
variants; neither of which (IMHO) accurately describes the actual situation.

Regards
--
Alex Hardisty
PQM Consultants