Subject: Re: [Sipping] WGLC for draft-ietf-sipping-e164-02.txt

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:15:24 -0700

On 5/15/03 6:06 AM, "Juha Heinanen" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Peterson, Jon writes:
> 
>> I don't
>> think it is too much to ask that SIP applications utilizing ENUM be generous
>> in what they receive with regard to enumservices -  it just doesn't seem
>> costly to be backwards compatible with the original iteration of the ENUM
>> standard.
> 
> check, for example, with cisco and let me know when they accept enum
> replies with both formats.  today they don't which is a very big
> problem. 
> 
> -- juha

If it is the right thing to do, and does not put huge burden on the
implementers (which I don't think this does), I suspect most the vendors
will implement both. My guess would be that the timeline for a vendor to
support both would be very similar to the timeline to support just the new
thing. This is the case for Cisco. I'd rather not have two things if one
would do - it's not so much the implementation issues but ongoing
interoperability and test issues.

I sort of question the idea that this is deployed enough that we have to be
backwards compatible on it. Is this really true? I could be convinced either
way. 

Cullen

_______________________________________________
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