Re: TISPAN proposal for PPP IPCP extension to handle P-CSCFaddress???

Jerome Moisand wrote:
> Providing a SIP-proxy (P-CSCF) server @ via IPCP does make sense though.
> 
> Might be a good idea to address the problem in a constructive manner,
> adding a mechanism for vendor-specific (or organization-specific)
> parameters that could be conveyed via IPCP. Allowing extensions without
> creating interoperability problems, and without the burden of having to
> go to IETF for defining such extensions. 
> 
> DHCP and many other protocols have such extensibility, why not IPCP?

Do you mean something like RFC 2153, PPP Vendor Extensions?

Craig

> 
> Was this topic discussed in the past?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Carlson [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 7:44 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Pppext] TISPAN proposal for PPP IPCP extension to handle
> P-CSCFaddress???
> 
> [email protected] writes:
>> However I was surprised to read that TISPAN standard ETSI ES 282 004
>> V1.1.1 (2006-06) is suggesting to use PPP IPCP extensions for
>> provisioning of P-CSCF IP address (pag 27, section 7.2 "PPP based
> 
> That's really unfortunate.  Their plan won't be interoperable.
> 
>> Isn't it strange? Do you know if TISPAN is actually thinking of
>> extending the PPP IPCP protocol?
> 
> It's not unusual for folks to write their own extensions to
> IETF-controlled protocols without bothering with the standardization
> process.  We don't have any IETF police out there to stop them.
> 
> If they care at all about interoperability, they won't do something
> like this.
> 
> Thanks for the pointer, though; I'll forward it around to see if we
> can't get clarification.
> 

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext