Subject: [Sipping] sipping-siptrunk-00

From: "Peter Musgrave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:59:57 -0500

Hi Jonathan,

I think this draft opens a useful discussion.

I like the use of the Route header in section 3 to separate the trunk
identity from the called party. Very good idea!

 When I hear "SIP trunk" I inevitably think (perhaps misguidedly) of
connections to ITSPs (Vonage and the like) as a way of getting PSTN access.
These are obviously problematic for many SIP proxies – and often force
implementers into B2B territory since that link is at best a "pseudo-trunk"
since as far as the ITSP is concerned the endpoint is a single device which
registers to it. Is it worth specifically commenting on/excluding or
declaring as "out of scope" this kind of link?

Also, the draft mentions PSTN trucks should do mutual TLS and calling party
checks. While I agree with this – in practice I have not seen this commonly
deployed. Is there also a case for allowing the connection to be established
via a REGISTER – or if not should the draft state that any connection
established with REGISTER is not a trunk?

Regards,

Peter Musgrave
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  http://www.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