Subject: [Sipping] TISPAN

From: "Dale Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 12:59:49 -0400

After a first read of draft-jesske-sipping-tispan-requirements, a few points
come to mind.

The biggest is that the specific facilities and requirements of each
simulation service are not spelled out in detail.  And yet, those details
will be critical in constraining what technological solutions are possible.
I expect that in the telecom universe, everybody knows exactly what is
acceptable as a, for example, "terminating indication presentation service",
but the IP community is unaware of this.  A fuller exposition will help the
discussion advance faster, and avoid IP people proposing solutions that are
not acceptable.

You may want to clarify the context in which you expect these services to be
used.  Section 4 contains the sentence "The requirements in this document
are intended to result in a mechanism with general applicability for the NGN
TISPAN and NOT on the Internet.", which suggests that you are not expecting
these services to be used anywhere SIP is now used.  If that is so, why are
you floating this proposal in front of the IETF?

Section 5 states "This document does not have any implications for IANA.",
and yet you define (or refer to) two new event packages, "cbbs" and
"mcid-request-info".  According to RFC 3265 Section 6, event package names
must be registered with IANA, so these event packages do have IANA
implications, as does your document.

Best regards,

Dale

_______________________________________________
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: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 14:20:55 +0300

Inline discussion.

> discussion advance faster, and avoid IP people proposing solutions that are

I agree with this point, we need to provide further discussion of each 
of these services.

> you floating this proposal in front of the IETF?

Well, ETSI is defining those services for usage in the context of Next 
Generation Networks that are built on top of the IP Multimedia Subsystem 
  (IMS). ETSI has strong requirements in terms of compability with the 
PSTN and interoperability with IMS. I believe ETSI does not have any 
problem if the Internet adopts the realization of these services, I 
would actually be very happy if that situation arises. But you must be 
aware that we are following an architectural model (the IMS) that 
perhaps the general Internet does not want to exactly follow.

All these factors make us think that the general Internet might not have 
interest in this work.... but if it has, welcome, we are not precluding 
usage.

> implications, as does your document.

The document, as is, does not have any action to IANA because it does 
not define anything, it is just a collection of requirements and 
potential solutions. If these solutions are considered to be on the 
right track, there will be event packages definitions or whatever it 
comes. These documents will have actions to IANA.

> Dale

Regards,

         Miguel

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