Subject: [P2PSIP] Re: [p2p-sip] Lightweight SIP Toolkit for P2P and Basic CS Systems

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:37:41 -0500

Hi, Henry/Alan/Eunsoo/Kundan

Sorry for the latency - I was checking with the chairs on the proper mailing 
list for continued discussion of this draft, and Gonzalo said "P2PSIP was 
fine". So I hope you're all on this mailing list...

Please be very clear - I really liked the idea of this draft when I saw it. 
My biggest concern is not the details in the draft, it's my lack of 
understanding about what we do next if we decide that we all like this draft 
(perhaps after working group discussion and refinement).

Is there a legitimate device that would implement only the drafts called out 
in this draft?

Would it be SIP?

Would it be SIP/2.0?

My concern is that if this draft is simply informative, people are still 
implementing the other 90 or so specifications that make up what we've 
thought SIP was, because they'll assume that other people will make use of 
those extensions - and if you have to implement all of the specifications, 
what's the incentive to restrict your own use of SIP to the lightweight 
toolkit?

If this draft is more than informative - say, a BCP - it would be good to 
understand what that means, too, and how devices that comply to a normative 
specification interoperate with devices that use existing extensions.

If I fundamentally misunderstand, please feel free to slap sense into me in 
Prague, of course.

Thanks,

Spencer 

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:02:52 -0700

Sorry, this is posted in duplicate for the last time on SIPPING for now,
since the chairs have decided that the discussion will be on the P2P SIP
WG list until further notice.

> Please be very clear - I really liked the idea of this draft when I
saw it.
Thanks you!

> Is there a legitimate device that would implement only the drafts 
> called out in this draft?

Yes, as mentioned in the I-D any device that can connect to either a P2P
SIP overlay or to an 3261 compliant SIP server system that can support
the registrar/proxy/redirect only. It could also connect to both as far
as SIP is concerned.

Simple functions such as voice mail, call in/out a conference enabled
endpoint all the way to UAs for receptionists and call centers are
accommodated.

We are respecting to key principles for the Internet:

1. The e2e principle,
2. The fullest freedom of endpoint applications developers to innovate.

If someone wants to have a mobile SIP device that surpasses everyone
else's in colors, dynamic GUI, features, links to entertainment, etc.,
they are free to do so, but it is not the business of "the network" to
understand them. So we discard any SIP extensions and servers that are
meant to support applications in the network.

> If this draft is more than informative - say, a BCP

Yes, it is only a BCP for the usage scenarios for simple SIP - the most
powerful we believe. As discussed elsewhere on SIPPING, existing
mechanisms can make a PDA talk very well to any fancy desktop SIP phone,
though it is ignorant of what all those buttons and display icons on the
phone are for. It is up to one of the endpoints how to forward a call,
etc. without the other endpoint necessarily having to understand any
extensions. What about a simple IM or a voice saying "your call (or IM)
is being forwarded"?

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 1:38 PM
To: P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: [P2PSIP] Re: [p2p-sip] Lightweight SIP Toolkit for P2P and
Basic CSSystems

Sorry for the latency - I was checking with the chairs on the proper
mailing 
list for continued discussion of this draft, and Gonzalo said "P2PSIP
was 
fine". So I hope you're all on this mailing list...

Please be very clear - I really liked the idea of this draft when I saw
it. 
My biggest concern is not the details in the draft, it's my lack of 
understanding about what we do next if we decide that we all like this
draft 
(perhaps after working group discussion and refinement).

Is there a legitimate device that would implement only the drafts called
out 
in this draft?

Would it be SIP?

Would it be SIP/2.0?

implementing the other 90 or so specifications that make up what we've 
thought SIP was, because they'll assume that other people will make use
of 
those extensions - and if you have to implement all of the
specifications, 
what's the incentive to restrict your own use of SIP to the lightweight 
toolkit?

If this draft is more than informative - say, a BCP - it would be good
to 
understand what that means, too, and how devices that comply to a
normative 
specification interoperate with devices that use existing extensions.

If I fundamentally misunderstand, please feel free to slap sense into me
in 
Prague, of course.

Thanks,

Spencer