Subject: RE: [Sipping] QSIG Vs DPNSS MIME

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:48:39 -0600

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ranjith Mukundan [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> In case of DPNSS too the message semantics matches SIP 
> messages - atleast to
> the same extent as it does for ISUP.

I think you mean "at least to the same extent as it does
for QSIG."

DPNSS, QSIG, and ISDN are all UNI protocols. ISUP is
an NNI protocol. SIP is end-to-end, which really
ends up acting more like an NNI protocol than a UNI
protocol.

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

---

From: "Ranjith Mukundan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:21:45 +0530

PRI, DASS2 etc are all 'true' UNI protocols - but not QSIG and DPNSS. I
would qualifiy DPNSS & QSIG as UUI (user-to-user) protocols as they are used
between PBXs (PINX in QSIG terminology) in a private network (PISN in QSIG
terminology). I mean, you could view QSIG and DPNSS as an
ISUP-protocol-equivalent for private networks. QSIG and ISDN are
peer-to-peer/end-to-end protocols unlike PRI (and DASS2) - making it both
SIP-like (atleast to the same extent as ISUP) from the *protocol
architecture* point of view.

From the protocol message semantic point of view, DPNSS matches SIP messages
to a larger extent than QSIG - esp wrt the session setup/progress/tear-down
messages (as opposed to the link/circuit maintenance messages) used for the
basic call *and* supplementary services like call transfer, three way
conference etc. As an example that I cited in an earlier mail, mid call QSIG
messages like INFO, NOTIFY & FAC would *all* get carried in SIP INFO
method - where as, in case of DPNSS, the only mid call message, and which
has a direct parlance to SIP INFO is EEM (end to end message; equivalent to
ISUP PAM and to some extent ISUP APM). For this reason, I'd think, DPNSS
message semantics matches SIP atleast to the same extent as it does for
ISUP.

cheers,
- ranjith..

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Roach [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 1:19 AM
To: 'Ranjith Mukundan'; Peterson, Jon; Jonathan Rosenberg
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Mark Watson'
Subject: RE: [Sipping] QSIG Vs DPNSS MIME

/a