Subject: Re: SIP+

From: Eric Zimmerer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 11:32:36 -0700

I agree with Henning that the use of the name "SIP+" should be avoided.

The concepts are valid, but as was stated, the name was causing confusion.

Tom Taylor is correct that the Softswitch Consortium will be moving forward
with these concepts and issuing a SIP BCP-T (SIP best current practices for
telephony) document.  I hoped to have the first draft in circulation by now,
but changing jobs/companies has introduced a small delay in the scheduling.

regards,

Eric Zimmerer
ipVerse inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
<[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, August 12, 1999 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: SIP+

>To avoid confusion, the name SIP+ should be avoided. Lots of people
>think of this as a separate protocol, or some kind of next-version SIP,
>which is simply not accurate. All of these efforts mentioned are
>extensions (mostly, the use of multipart message bodies to carry ISUP in
>addition to SDP) of basic SIP or should, if anything, be thought of as a
>protocol profile for a particular application.
>
>There are now probably a dozen or more drafts on SIP extensions, all of
>which can be found at http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip (since most do not
>carry the mmusic identifier, so finding them isn't that easy). The goal
>is to make them orthogonal as much as possible, so that one can use
>various applications. For example, the PacketCable effort has very
>different goals from carrying ISUP, and not all MGC-MGC uses of SIP will
>need ISUP carriage.
>
>Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
>>
>> You should look at the material under consideration in MMUSIC.  There are
>> actually three streams of SIP+ development (by my count): the material
>> presented by Adam Roach, the material presented by the PacketCable
people,
>> and the stuff started by Eric Zimmerer and presumably to be carried
forward
>> by the International SoftSwitch Consortium once they get rolling.  I may
>> have missed something -- MCI may also have some thoughts on the matter.
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Gary Greenberg [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 8:19 AM
>> > To:   [email-masked]
>> > Subject:      SIP+
>> >
>> > Can someone please point me at the latest draft of SIP+ (inter-MGC
>> > proposal)?
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> > Gary
>> >
>> > Gary M. Greenberg
>> > Castle Networks
>> > One Executive Drive
>> > Chelmsford, MA  01824
>