Subject: [Sipping] review of draft-vemuri-sip-t-context-02.txt

From: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 07:59:01 -0400

I have completed my initial review of the SIP-T context draft. I did not
find any
major technical issues. Most of the issues are process/conformance issues. I
think the issues of significance are 1,2,4,12, and 13.

1) The draft has expired and needs to be re-issued. It also needs to be
renamed as a WG document.

2) I'm not comfortable with the statement in the Abstract that the document
has to be studied with existing SIP-T literature. Does this refer to old
expired drafts? Or other articles? Frankly, I think the document stands
fairly well on its own to provide a context for SIP-T. If there are other
documents that the reader must be familiar with, there should be explicit
references.

3) In the 4th sentence of the 2nd paragraph of section 1, change "PSTN
inter-connection" to "PSTN-IP interconnection" to be consistent with other
references.

4) In note 2 at the end of section 1, same problem as issue 2 above. What is
the SIP-T document-set?

5) In the description of endpoints in section 2 (item 2 on page 4), it says
various types devices "originate" calls. What about "termination" of calls?

6) Item 2a on page 4. Aren't MGCs also known as signaling gateways?

7) I think figures 3 & 4 would be more accurate with the proxy inside of the
network (like in figure 1) and the SIP phone on the border.

8) The labels across the top of the signaling time flow on page 9 need to
be aligned with the vertical bars.

9) The "In summary" at the bottom of page 13 & top of page 14 should be
section 3.2.4 so that it is not part of the proxy requirements.

10) Formatting at the top of page 14, 2 paragraphs before section 4:

     a) The ISUP may be extracted from the SIP message body, or,
     b) The ISUP may be generated from information in the SIP headers.
     The TERMINATOR must ignore any ISUP present in the SIP-T message in
     case of IP termination.

should be:
     a) The ISUP may be extracted from the SIP message body, or,
     b) The ISUP may be generated from information in the SIP headers.

  The TERMINATOR must ignore any ISUP present in the SIP-T message in
  case of IP termination.

11) At 4.a, it says "Core SIP SIP-T". Is that correct or should it be just
"Core SIP-T"?

12) In section 4.c, it refers to draft-camrillo-sip-isup-bcp-00.txt for
SIP-ISUP mappings. This should be updated to draft-ietf-sip-isup-02.txt and
added to section 10.

13) In section 4.d, it refers to draft-ietf-sip-info-method-04.txt. This is
RFC 2976 issued almost a year ago. This reference should be added to section
10.

14) In example flow #2 in section 5, there needs to be an ACK to be
consistent with flow #3. In spite of the note, either both 2 & 3 should show
the ACK or neither should show it.

15) section 10. the isup-mime draft is at rev 10. For I-D references, it
must say "work in progress".

(-:bob

Robert F. Penfield
Chief Software Architect
Acme Packet, Inc.
130 New Boston Street
Woburn, MA 01801
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  http://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: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 09:45:11 -0700

>6) Item 2a on page 4. Aren't MGCs also known as signaling gateways?

No. An SG function is separate from an MGC function. However, when you 
productize an MGC into a Softswitch, the product *may* include an SG function.

---

From: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:24:38 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Holdrege" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Sipping] review of draft-vemuri-sip-t-context-02.txt

> productize an MGC into a Softswitch, the product *may* include an SG
function.

It just seemed to me that the function being described in the draft
(converting ISUP signaling to SIP signaling) was an SG function as opposed
to an MGC function.

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 11:47:52 -0700

>(converting ISUP signaling to SIP signaling) was an SG function as opposed

I think the draft is correct as is since it refers to ISUP rather than SS7. 
Generally the SG is the SS7 endpoint rather than the ISUP endpoint.