Subject: RE: [Sip] About the ECMA TR/87 (aka SIP CTI Interface)

From: "Roy, Radhika \(AEAD\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:22:31 -0500

The use of other protocols like SDP and others in SIP must NOT need to
be generalized by making a technically "wrong" interpretation such as
"carrying of other protocols."

Technically write interpretation of using SDP and others in SIP is this:

1. SDP and other protocols "complement" the session initiation in SIP.
2. SIP must NOT be used just another "transport" protocol for carrying
other protocols.
3. SIP must NOT be used to carry another protocol suits of "session
establishment" protocols that contradict the very fundamentals for which
SIP has been created as a standard.

If anyone violates the above items, definitely, they are abusing SIP
standards, and it must be stopped immediately.

Any comments?

Best regards,

Radhika R. Roy
SAIC

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Frank Derks
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 3:02 AM
To: Mariano Stokle
Cc: SIP; SIPPING; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sip] About the ECMA TR/87 (aka SIP CTI Interface)

Hi Mariano,

I realise that I am treading on dangerous ground here, but I couldn't 
resist answering. 

If you are asking yourself whether SIP is appropriate for carrying
another 
"signalling 
protocol" is like asking "can I use SIP to do something for me". Most,
if 
not all, 
SIP implementations rely on the fact that some other protocol is being 
carried in a SIP
body. SDP and the XML used for IM and presence are good examples of
this. 
The SIP methods
that could be used to convey these protocols, is obviously open for 
discussion, but I
fear that it will be extremely difficult to come to real consensus on 
this. In the CSTA
case, I would say that, depending on what you are doing, both methods 
could be appropriate. 

BTW, Microsoft uses SIP messages with the CSTA XML variant for LCS.

3PCC is not quite as powerful as CSTA. Realise that "CSTA" covers a 
complete suite of 3rd
party call control functionality, whereas 3PCC "just" describes a method

by which a few
3rd party call control services could be realised. Precisely because of 
3PCC's limitations
TR/87 was created.

Cheers,

Frank

Mariano Stokle <[email-masked]> 
Sent by:
[email-masked]
2005-10-28 12:25 PM

To
SIP <[email-masked]>
SIPPING <[email-masked]>
cc

Subject
[Sip] About the ECMA TR/87 (aka SIP CTI Interface)
Classification

Recently I noticed the implementation of TR/87 spec in several SIP
Application Servers. My question (sorry it is out off topic for these
lists) is about if it is a right use of SIP according to the
architectural design principles of SIP and particulary, the use of
INVITE for establish a signalling session. I mean: is SIP the right
choice to transport another signalling protocol as CSTA? If yes, it is
INVITE the right method to transport CSTA information or
SUBSCRIBE-NOTIFY would be a better choice? Finally, do we need CSTA
over SIP when we have RFC 4117 for 3PCC?

Regards,

--
Mariano Stokle

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

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

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