RE: : Issue: differences betweern 3GPP SIP usage and Diameter SIP document

>>Jari,
>>
>>Is there any reason why your colleague didn't participate in the WG 
>>discussions?  There have been 3 WG last calls, which is ample 
>>opportunity for people to contribute to this work.
>>  
>>
>Don't blame my colleague, blame me -- I've been too busy in 
>the last weeks to send this in, even if I had it earlier. 
>Sorry. Also, there are a lot of folks working on Cx in many 
>companies, most likely including the authors of the spec.

Wouldn't be easier for the people in 3GPP to speak directly? The
IETF does like when folks from other SDOs come and participate
in our work.

>By the way, we are not raising this as an issue that must be 
>corrected. We are raising this as a difference, with an intent 
>to provide information that may or may not be useful in making 
>the protocol more likely to be adopted at a particular user community.

Well, I think we would need more information - how hard is the
requirement of backwards compatibility.  Could Change Requests
to the Cx spec fix these issues?  Are the differences because
of technical reasons, or deployment considerations - or something 
else?  This would be good to hear directly from 3GPP.

>I agree that the data is raw. Many of the items are simply 
>resulting from the fact that Cx is a vendor specific protocol. 
>Some additional work would be needed to determine if there's 
>any difference that is worth changing Diameter SIP for.

Exactly, and I believe that would fall on the parties suggesting
the changes.  But be that as it may, I think this sounds like something
we could handle during IETG Last Call, but if you can spend time
find out what the differences really mean.  The differences, it
seems, are mostly on the parameter level, so I don't think that
these are really a show-stopper, but could be resolved during
IETG Last Call.



thanks,
John