Subject: [Sipping] RE: [p2p-sip] Lightweight SIP Toolkit for P2P and Basic CS Systems

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 08:01:46 -0800

Peter,

Thanks for noticing the draft! 

> darned near missed it going by 

I have now also added the sipping folks here; sorry for the duplicate
message. The I-D on "simple SIP" usage scenario is

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sinnreich-sip-tools-01.txt

I understand it is on the agenda of the P2P SIP WG meeting to discuss. 

We will try there in the short time possible and/or on the list to
address the points raised by Benny Prijono regarding additional RFC's to
include in the simple SIP usage scenario. 

It's not a profile of SIP, nor an extension, but rather a subtraction
:-) 

It's also work in progress, so any comments are most helpful.

Thanks again, Henry

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:46 AM
To: Henry Sinnreich
Cc: Benny Prijono; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Lightweight SIP Toolkit for P2P and Basic CS
Systems

Hi Henry, list, (also including list administrator here) 

Interesting and useful work... but darned near missed it going by.   

Can this discussion and any others be moved to the IETF p2psip list
([email-masked], established early Feb) please?  I, for one, almost
missed this since I have transitioned to the new list and no longer lurk
on this one.   Also makes it hard to find archives and such.  That is,
unless there is some good reason to keep some category of discussions
off the main IETF list, making them effectively unofficial and
private... 

BTW, this discussion is about draft-sinnreich-sip-tools, right?  I don't
think I saw an announce go by on its availability on the [email-masked]
list.  Could be wrong on that (leaky brain), but if not, I suggest it
would be good to make it known there.   

Salman/admin: Is there any way a generic announcement could be made in
posts here, aiming people on the now official IETF list?? 

Thanks, 
Peter Blatherwick 

"Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked] 

05.03.07 22:11 

        To:        "Benny Prijono" <[email-masked]> 
        cc:        [email-masked] 
        Subject:        Re: [p2p-sip] Lightweight SIP Toolkit for P2P
and Basic CS Systems

Benny,

These are excellent suggestions and thanks for discussing this usage
scenario for simple SIP. It's still simple(r), isn't it?

I plan to act on your suggestion in the next version of the I-D.

Thanks again, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Benny Prijono [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 7:31 PM
To: Henry Sinnreich
Cc: Spencer Dawkins; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Lightweight SIP Toolkit for P2P and Basic CS
Systems

Hi Henry,

Henry Sinnreich wrote:
> 
> Thanks for catching that RFC 2119 need not be counted as a SIP RFC.
> 

Since we taking out RFC 2119, what about putting in RFC 3265 
(Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event Notification) to 
fill in the hole since presence depends on this.

And thinking about other stuffs that are normative, what about RFC 
2617 for SIP digest authentication? And RFC 4566 for SDP?

And is RFC 3840 really essential for endpoint based operations? 
Looks like it's more to network based service to me.

And don't we want RPID (RFC 4480) for presence? I think we do.

Call transfer (RFC 3515, 3420, 3891, 3892, 4488)? Probably not.

Just my 2p.

 -benny

_______________________________________________
p2p-sip mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/p2p-sip

_______________________________________________
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: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:02:52 -0700

Sorry, this is posted in duplicate for the last time on SIPPING for now,
since the chairs have decided that the discussion will be on the P2P SIP
WG list until further notice.

Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> Please be very clear - I really liked the idea of this draft when I
saw it.
Thanks you!

> Is there a legitimate device that would implement only the drafts 
> called out in this draft?

Yes, as mentioned in the I-D any device that can connect to either a P2P
SIP overlay or to an 3261 compliant SIP server system that can support
the registrar/proxy/redirect only. It could also connect to both as far
as SIP is concerned.

Simple functions such as voice mail, call in/out a conference enabled
endpoint all the way to UAs for receptionists and call centers are
accommodated.

We are respecting to key principles for the Internet:

1. The e2e principle,
2. The fullest freedom of endpoint applications developers to innovate.

If someone wants to have a mobile SIP device that surpasses everyone
else's in colors, dynamic GUI, features, links to entertainment, etc.,
they are free to do so, but it is not the business of "the network" to
understand them. So we discard any SIP extensions and servers that are
meant to support applications in the network.

> If this draft is more than informative - say, a BCP

Yes, it is only a BCP for the usage scenarios for simple SIP - the most
powerful we believe. As discussed elsewhere on SIPPING, existing
mechanisms can make a PDA talk very well to any fancy desktop SIP phone,
though it is ignorant of what all those buttons and display icons on the
phone are for. It is up to one of the endpoints how to forward a call,
etc. without the other endpoint necessarily having to understand any
extensions. What about a simple IM or a voice saying "your call (or IM)
is being forwarded"?

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 1:38 PM
To: P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: [P2PSIP] Re: [p2p-sip] Lightweight SIP Toolkit for P2P and
Basic CSSystems

Hi, Henry/Alan/Eunsoo/Kundan

Sorry for the latency - I was checking with the chairs on the proper
mailing 
list for continued discussion of this draft, and Gonzalo said "P2PSIP
was 
fine". So I hope you're all on this mailing list...

Please be very clear - I really liked the idea of this draft when I saw
it. 
My biggest concern is not the details in the draft, it's my lack of 
understanding about what we do next if we decide that we all like this
draft 
(perhaps after working group discussion and refinement).

Is there a legitimate device that would implement only the drafts called
out 
in this draft?

Would it be SIP?

Would it be SIP/2.0?

My concern is that if this draft is simply informative, people are still

implementing the other 90 or so specifications that make up what we've 
thought SIP was, because they'll assume that other people will make use
of 
those extensions - and if you have to implement all of the
specifications, 
what's the incentive to restrict your own use of SIP to the lightweight 
toolkit?

If this draft is more than informative - say, a BCP - it would be good
to 
understand what that means, too, and how devices that comply to a
normative 
specification interoperate with devices that use existing extensions.

If I fundamentally misunderstand, please feel free to slap sense into me
in 
Prague, of course.

Thanks,

Spencer 

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip