Subject: RE: [Sipping] Device Identity

From: "Xia, Zhi Feng \(Bruce\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:41:04 +0800

What's the conclusion of this discussion? Is anybody going to write any new draft for that?

-----Original Message-----
From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 2006年2月19日 10:39
To: Dale R. Worley; sipping
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Device Identity

Some early version of draft-jennings-sipping-instance-id define some of
this. However, people pointed out that UUID already was capable of doing
this, and even better UUID could work for softphone too. It seemed like UUID
was a super set of everything we need so I abandoned that draft.

It seems like a UUID in the +sip.instance meets the needs people have
identified.

Cullen

On 2/16/06 11:49 AM, "Dale R. Worley" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 13:37 -0600, Dean Willis wrote:
>> Don't we have different underlying registries for different sorts of
>> MAC address: ethernet, token-ring, FDDI, etc.?
> 
> My belief (which may be wrong) is that all MACs are drawn from the same
> number space, which is managed and assigned by the IEEE.  If so, we
> don't need to have separate schemes for different sorts of MACs.
> 
> Dale
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 13:24:02 -0800

I know this has moved around so much it is hard to keep track of. My
apologies. The latest version of the functionality you are looking for has
moved to 

draft-ietf-sip-outbound-02.txt

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:40:54 +0200

Hi all,

An updated version of the "Requirements and Possible Mechanisms for File
Transfer Services Within the Context of SIP Based Communication" is
available at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-isomaki-sipping-file-transfer-
01.txt

The changes are mostly editorial. I have added a single new requirement
to file transfer in the context of a media session (Section 3.4). It
says:

   REQ-SESSION-3: It MUST be possible for the recipient to request a
   file from the sender, providing meta information about the file.  The
   sender MUST be able to decide whether to send a file matching the
   request.

This came up in discussions with people wanting to implement the file
transfer service in a SIP UA.

In general there has been very little discussion on the -00 version of
the draft. However, I have received a few private comments from people
who are interested to see this work go forward. So, I would like those
people to restate their interest on this list as well, so we can see if
we get enough support to keep this moving.

If there is enough interest, I would like the requirements draft to be
consired as a WG item for SIPPING.

I'm also a co-author in the draft on "A Mechanism to Enable File
Transfer with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-sipping-file-transfer-m
ech-00.txt. That draft tries to address some of the requirements
expressed, especially related to one-to-one service. I believe this is
the area where the work should start, and we would also like to get
comments on that draft. 

Regards,
	Markus

---

From: "Rohan Mahy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:19:43 -0800

Hi,

I don't think there was a conclusion exactly, but Cullen recommended just
using the existing RFC for UUID.  This is what is RECOMMENDED in the
outbound draft.

While Dale is correct that MAC addresses are all in one address space, it is
way, way, way out of our scope here in SIPPING to define a new URN for MAC
addresses.  If someone does standardize a URN for MAC addresses (elsewhere),
we can certainly reference it.

thanks,
-rohan