Subject: Re: [Sipping] TISPAN

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:48:44 +0200

>so once more, I
>don't recall any point of non interoperability.

Nice to hear.

I just wonder for what reason GSM-A required for their ENUM implementation
in GRX e164.3gppnetwork.org (or whatever it will be) to have an additional
special enumservice (either SIP+IMS or SIP:IMS) to distingiush between
IMS SIP and vanilla SIP?

If what you said is true, they do not need this

regards

Richard

________________________________

Von: Miguel Garcia [mailto:[email-masked]]
Gesendet: Mo 06.06.2005 09:22
An: Stastny Richard
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; Sipping (E-mail)
Betreff: Re: AW: [Sipping] TISPAN

Inline comments.

Stastny Richard wrote:

> Well said, Jonathan!
> 
>
>>I think it is essential that we allow interoperability between "vanilla"
>>SIP clients and ones on an IMS network.
>>I don't see any reason why any
>>call feature would be applicable only to IMS or NGN or TISPAN or
>>whatever network.
>
> 
> They do. The basic idea of TISPAN and 3GPP NGN IMS is to be in a walled
> garden and not in central park, becauae this is insecure and to be sure of  this
> they want to be non-intereoperable.
> 

Richard:

I cannot disagree more with your words. I am trying to recall from my
memory one single point where a vanilla SIP client couldn't interoperate
with a SIP client connected to the IMS or to an NGN network, and
honestly speaking, I can't recall any. The only thing that comes to my
memory was that, at some point in time, 3GPP required all the sessions
to use preconditions, so interoperability with those vanilla SIP clients
  that did not implement preconditions wasn't possible. This limitation
was relaxed in the Release 6 of the 3GPP specifications, so once more, I
don't recall any point of non interoperability.

/Miguel

> regards
> Richard

--
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
sip:[email-masked]
Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland

_______________________________________________
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: "Dale Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:26:15 -0400

I'm starting to lose my grip on what we're trying to accomplish here.

As far as I can tell, ETSI is going ahead with defining extensions to SIP to
support features that network operators want.  At least initially, these
would be used entirely within their proprietary networks.  And they want to
get them defined quickly.

But it would nonetheless be good for them if they got some input from the
IETF, both for good system design, and to improve interoperability over the
long term, if not the short term.

Obviously, ETSI is less interested in commentary on their requirements than
on their mechanisms.  But without fairly detailed information about their
requirements, it's hard to make intelligent comments on the mechanisms.  To
that end, I thing it would be a big improvment to revise their document to
include discussion of the feature requirements.  Currently, they only refer
to various telco documents, but I've only been able to find pointers to
paper copies at significant prices (200+ euros).  It isn't going to generate
much commentary if one has to pay over 1000 euros to discover what the
*requirements* are.

Dale

---

From: Juha Heinanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 20:39:46 +0300

> get them defined quickly.

i don't understand what ietf would have to do with such walled garden
building blocks.  I in ietf spells Internet (or at least it used to).
unless those telcos pushing the specs in etsi get legal help from
totalitarian governments, there is no chance that walled gardens for
voice communication could survive.

-- juha

---

From: "Dale Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:46:16 -0400

> From: Juha Heinanen [mailto:[email-masked]]
>

There might be market developments that for one reason or another cause such
systems to survive.  But assuming that the walled gardens do not remain
totally isolated forever, there will come a day when their mechanisms and
those on the greater Internet start to interact.  And if we can give them
advice now that will make that interaction better rather than worse, it is
an improvement.

Dale

---

From: Juha Heinanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 20:57:03 +0300

Dale Worley writes:

 > systems to survive.

their only chance is that we loose freedom of speech, i.e., we are
allowed only to speak with each other though their walled gardens (which
may very well happen on both sides of atlantic, china, russia, etc.).

-- juha

---

From: Arjun Roychowdhury <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:42:32 -0400

Richard,
Has this now become a hard requirement ? Last I checked it was more of
a question - i.e. whether SIP+IMS or SIP:IMS is required or will plain
ENUM do the trick. It was my understanding that GSM-A was open to
discussion on this topic. Is this not correct ?

regds
arjun

-- 
Arjun Roychowdhury

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:31:20 -0500

TISPAN has ideas about how they want to use SIP.

They're perfectly welcome to share those ideas with us, and we're 
likely to talk about them if they do. That's just basic IETF process. 
Anybody can contribute ideas, even if they're rampantly silly, but we 
try not to let them disrupt our work.

Where those ideas indicate to us an alternative means of accomplishing 
the apparent goal, we'll probably suggest that means, and the TISPAN 
folks can take that home and think about it. This happened a lot with 
3GPP, and I predict it will happen for TISPAN.

Where those ideas convince us of the need for SIP extensions, I expect 
that we'll define consensus positions on the requirements for those 
extensions, and work with the SIP working group on defining the 
extensions. We had several good ideas come in this way from 3GPP like 
the Path and ServiceRoute extensions, and we're getting good ideas from 
OMA like the extensions for answering and alerting mode negotiations 
that I'm currently editing. I expect we'll get a few good ideas from 
TISPAN.

Where it looks like a SIP extension is probably needed to achieve a 
TISPAN goal, but the goal is not sufficiently general to justify a full 
blown SIP extension, we might do a P-header or something of that sort. 
I wouldn't be surprised if we run into a few of these.

And where the ideas coming in are repugnant, offensive, or generally 
retrograde to Internet principles, I expect we'll politely pinch shut 
our nostrils, explain the offense as appropriate, and thereafter ignore 
it with the dignity one would accord an unwashed passenger seated 
nearby on the subway.

So, don't panic! The sky is NOT falling, and we're not about to be 
overrun by a horde of telecom barbarians.

--
Dean

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:24:50 +0300

Richard:

First time I hear about such ENUM service. I am not following what the 
GSM-A is doing, so I can't really comment.

/Miguel