Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-rosenberg-sip-target-uri-delivery-01.txt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theo Zourzouvillys [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:20 PM
> 
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
> > If we can't eat our own dog food, there's something wrong with the food.
> 
> or you've not yet worked out how to open the tin.

I think most everyone in the SIP Forum knows how the mechanism could work using HI.  The question was if we wanted to solve the issue using HI for the SIP-Connect profile.  I think the rationale for "no" was the feeling we had on whether PBX's would actually support HI anytime soon, or whether in practice we would actually be doing something different in deployment to actually make calls work.  (though I can't really speak for others - I could be totally wrong on that, this was just the sense I got)

Personally, I look at it from a motivation perspective: who has the motivation to change to make something work?  In the SIP-Connect case, the Service Provider is the one selling the SIP-Trunk service, so to win the deal and satisfy customers they've got more of the motivation/burden to make it work.  The SP's also have a large motivation to support as many IP-PBX vendors as possible.  Any changes we mandate of IP-PBX vendors will reduce the pool of them that are "SIP-Connect compliant", which is not good.  Especially when what we're proposing basically works *now* in SIP-Trunk deployments - i.e., there's running code.  It doesn't quite work that way today within the SP's domain on the wire, but as I said they have the motivation (and the ability) to change their side.

-hadriel 

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip