Subject: [Sipping] Inter-Domain Requirements for SIP/SIMPLE

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:53:43 -0500

The I-D Inter-Domain Requirements for SIP/SIMPLE
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levin-simple-interdomain-reqs-02.t
xt 

is not only a very good document but is also very timely for other
inter-domain communications, such as between all the emerging VoIP islands
(the islands are a regrettable fact at present).

I suggest therefore having a 5 minute hum so as to make it a SIPPING WG
item.

Small nits can be discussed on the list. For example eliminate various
options, unless there is some automatic negotiation mechanism. 

Also, what is the simplest set from the above so as to have something that
"is good enough but not better". In other words, the I-D should recommend
the default option in all cases where there are some choices.

Thanks, Henry

_______________________________________________
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: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:49:46 -0500

> I suggest therefore having a 5 minute hum so as to make it a SIPPING WG

Henry, I'm pretty sure that if we ask the working group to hum for 5  
minutes that the resulting anoxia would preclude further useful work  
for the remainder of the meeting.

Could we just poll the mailing list instead?

--
Dean

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 07:18:41 -0700

What are the opinions on this list? Should it become a SIPPING WG item?

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 6:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Inter-Domain Requirements for SIP/SIMPLE

--
Dean

---

From: "Jake Salinger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:30:25 +0200

It should definitely become a SIPPING WG item. This document is great.

---

From: Arjun Roychowdhury <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:41:31 -0400

Henning and Eunsoo recently authored and ID on "Identity Relationships"
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schulzrinne-sipping-id-relationships-00.txt

Personally, I believe this is a good step forward in bringing some
alignment between different communication mechanisms.

Does it make sense to add identity relationsip as a section in this
interdomain draft ? Even though this is more of a intra-domain
management issue, it does have inter-domain implications for
reachability (for example, user [email-masked] should try, say,
mailto:[email-masked] if sip:[email-masked] is unreachable)

regds
arjun

-- 
Arjun Roychowdhury

---

From: Arjun Roychowdhury <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:45:47 -0400

Ooops - sorry, confusion on my part.

On reading the title of the I-D I though it referred to both
IM/presence as well as normal voice/video  communication using SIP. It
looks like the draft only talks about SIMPLE.

It is just me, or is the term SIP/SIMPLE a little confusing re: scope ?

regds
arjun

-- 
Arjun Roychowdhury

---

From: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:47:58 -0400

I'm confused - the document seems largely about doing stuff that existing
RFC and documents say you must do. The rest the document seems about saying
that how interdomain should work is in a walled garden. We already have a
solution for that with the 3GPP stuff.

I really want to us solve the interdomain issues for a non walled garden
case.
I'm glad to see this as list discussion but I don't yet understand what the
concrete things are in this that would help deployments.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Henry Sinnreich
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 10:54 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Sipping] Inter-Domain Requirements for SIP/SIMPLE

Thanks, Henry

_______________________________________________
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: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 01:52:54 -0500

>I really want to us solve the interdomain issues for a 
>non walled garden case.

Glad we are on the same page. IMHO this document can be developed into a BCP
how to do it. Please state what may be missing.

Henry

-----Original Message-----

Thanks, Henry

---

From: "Jeroen van Bemmel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:12:43 +0200

I get a little confused by the use of the term 'community' in this document. 
It seems to coincide with a 'domain', and since the document is about 
'inter-domain' interfaces that could make sense. However, in the 
introduction it is stated that 'A SIP/SIMPLE community administers its own 
namespace of SIP addresses or has other administrative authority over a 
collection of users and/or SIP/SIMPLE endpoints'

Does the "or has other..." part suggest that a community could consists of 
users from multiple domains? And would it include all users from a domain, 
or is it an extended subset?

To avoid confusion, perhaps it would be an idea to only talk about 
'domains'? Or else change the title to 'inter-community' interfaces, and 
define 'community' more precisely?

Regards,

Jeroen