Subject: [Sip] ISSUE 1 in Hitchhikers guide to SIP: Whats in, whats out

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 14:50:01 -0400

In preparing to revise the hitchhikers guide to sip (currently at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-sip-hitchhikers-guide-00.txt), 
there are a few open issues it would be good to try and resolve. I'm 
going to send out a few notes to try and do that.

The first and biggest one is around what documents are in scope to be 
covered by this specification, and which are not. During the meeting, 
folks pointed out that the absence of SDP and RFC 3264 seemed wrong, and 
Henry suggested that ICE be included too. The criteria I had defined for 
this document was that something had to be a literal SIP extension to be 
included. I think the feedback is that this is too narrow of a 
definition. Spencer had also commented that MIME objects defined for SIP 
(like AIB) shouldn't be exlcuded either (they are not SIP extensions).

So, I would offer up the following as a proposed scope for inclusion of 
a document:

* Specifies an IETF approved extension to SIP itself
* Specifies an IETF approved extension to SDP whose primary purpose is 
to support SIP
* Specifies a MIME object whose primary purpose is to support SIP

This would, consequently, expand the scope of the hitchhikers guide to 
the many SDP extensions. I think thats OK, but folks should be aware of 
that.

Comments or alternatives?

Thanks,
Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

_______________________________________________
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

---

From: "Alan Hawrylyshen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 23:08:46 -0600

> the many SDP extensions. I think thats OK, but folks should be aware of

Although it will expand the document significantly, it also collects a
significant and useful body of work in one place (or at least pointers
thereto). If you feel this undertaking is tractable, it is likely
effory well-spent. It MAY cause you to want to take on more editing
assistance though.

Alan

--
a d o t h a w r y l y s h e n a t g m a i l d o t c o m

---

From: Cary FitzGerald <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 12:13:14 -0700 (PDT)

It seems to me that it depends on the goal of the document.  As the size of the community of interest around SIP/VoIP has grown, and as the complexity of SIP has grown, this document fills an important need of identifying what an aspiring member of the community should know in order to understand the field.  Given that both of these topics have been the subject of considerable dialog on the various mailing lists, my inclination is to include them.

Cary.

On Mon, 8 May 2006, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

> there are a few open issues it would be good to try and resolve. I'm going to 
> send out a few notes to try and do that.
>
> The first and biggest one is around what documents are in scope to be covered 
> by this specification, and which are not. During the meeting, folks pointed 
> out that the absence of SDP and RFC 3264 seemed wrong, and Henry suggested 
> that ICE be included too. The criteria I had defined for this document was 
> that something had to be a literal SIP extension to be included. I think the 
> feedback is that this is too narrow of a definition. Spencer had also 
> commented that MIME objects defined for SIP (like AIB) shouldn't be exlcuded 
> either (they are not SIP extensions).
>
> So, I would offer up the following as a proposed scope for inclusion of a 
> document:
>
> * Specifies an IETF approved extension to SDP whose primary purpose is to 
> support SIP
> This would, consequently, expand the scope of the hitchhikers guide to the 
> many SDP extensions. I think thats OK, but folks should be aware of that.
>