Subject: RE: [Sipping] Requirements for the identification of IMS communicationservices.

From: "Stephen Terrill \(E2/EEM\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:06:20 +0100

Hi Paul,

>What is supposed to happen when interoperating with users that don't
have the same concept of how to >partition capabilities into services?

This is what I thought that the identifier is to solve.

So far, PoC; Messaging and Telephony have different applications servers
supporting them - they can, as an option, by combined, but not required
- do you agree with that?

Best Regards,

Stephen Terrill

_______________________________________________
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: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:03:11 -0500

Stephen Terrill (E2/EEM) wrote:
>>have the same concept of how to partition capabilities into services?
> 

It is?

Does the particular identifier need to be understood and supported 
end-to-end in all cases? Or is it in some cases on relevant in between 
the UAC and originating services?

That isn't at all apparent to me, though from your response I am 
guessing you require it to be e2e.

> - do you agree with that?

Aside from PoC, I don't know what these servers do, or why they are 
needed. I suspect that "telephony" doesn't necessarily require matching 
support at both ends, and so could work if the terminating end didn't 
understand the service, or even the concept of service. I don't know if 
the same is true of the others.

If this is a way of constraining residents of a closed garden to 
interact only with other residents of the same garden then it seems like 
a bad thing.

	Paul