New Draft on TISPAN analysis for SIP solutions concerning the = simulation Services

Sprint Advanced Technology = Labs

Being one of the authors of the draft it is not surprising that I fully
agree with you. Thanks for your support.
I want to emphasize several points:
* The IETF can not expect that defining a protocol
is the end of the work.
presence and IM and other protocols that the IETF
is currently defining are in
a much higher level then TCP or UDP or any network
protocol. The interop
issues are not only technical but imply a lot of other
concerns that need to be
solved in order have a real interop.
* SIP interoperability is not flying. It is very hard
to do when components from
different companies are involved and it is very hard
to do when several
communities are involved. It is actually impossible
to do without negotiating
what will be that actual interop and what will be
allowed and what will not be
allowed. I may be wrong but it seems that the shift
from peer to peer or a single
deployment paradigm to interoperability between enterprises
and different
deployment have not happened yet.
We need to get these kind of items to the top priority
of the SIPPING working
group even in the expense of not adding new features
to SIP in order to make sure
that SIP will really be something that all will feel
convenient regarding its
interoperability.
Avshalom

Being one of the authors of the =
draft it=20
  is not surprising that I fully
agree with=20
  you. Thanks for your support.
I =
want to=20
  emphasize several points:
* The =
IETF can=20
  not expect that defining a protocol is the end of the =
work.
presence and IM and other protocols that the =
IETF is=20
  currently defining are in
a much =
higher level=20
  then TCP or UDP or any network protocol. The interop
issues are not only technical but imply a lot of other =
concerns that=20
  need to be
solved in order have a =
real=20
  interop.
* SIP interoperability =
is not=20
  flying. It is very hard to do when components from
different companies are involved and it is very hard to do =
when=20
  several
communities are involved. =
It is=20
  actually impossible to do without negotiating
what will be that actual interop and what will be allowed and =
what will=20
  not be
allowed. I may be wrong but =
it seems=20
  that the shift from peer to peer or a single
deployment paradigm to interoperability between enterprises =
and=20
  different
deployment have not =
happened=20
  yet.
We need to get these kind =
of items=20
  to the top priority of the SIPPING working
group even in the expense of not adding new features to SIP =
in order to=20
  make sure
that SIP will really be =
something=20
  that all will feel convenient regarding its
interoperability.
Avshalom
Being one of the authors of the draft it =
is not
surprising that I fully
agree with
you. Thanks for your support.
I want to
emphasize several points:
* The IETF
can not expect that defining a protocol is the end of the =
work.
presence and
IM and other protocols that the IETF is currently defining are =
in
a much
higher level then TCP or UDP or any network protocol. The =
interop
issues are
not only technical but imply a lot of other concerns that need to =
be
solved in
order have a real interop.
* SIP
interoperability is not flying. It is very hard to do when components =
from
different
companies are involved and it is very hard to do when =
several
communities
are involved. It is actually impossible to do without =
negotiating
what will be
that actual interop and what will be allowed and what will not =
be
allowed. I
may be wrong but it seems that the shift from peer to peer or a =
single
deployment
paradigm to interoperability between enterprises and =
different
deployment
have not happened yet.
We need to
get these kind of items to the top priority of the SIPPING =
working
group even
in the expense of not adding new features to SIP in order to make =
sure
that SIP
will really be something that all will feel convenient regarding =
its
interoperability.
Avshalom
Being one of the authors of the draft it =
is not
surprising that I fully
agree with
you. Thanks for your support.
I want to
emphasize several points:
* The IETF
can not expect that defining a protocol is the end of the =
work.
presence and
IM and other protocols that the IETF is currently defining are =
in
a much
higher level then TCP or UDP or any network protocol. The =
interop
issues are
not only technical but imply a lot of other concerns that need to =
be
solved in
order have a real interop.
* SIP
interoperability is not flying. It is very hard to do when components =
from
different
companies are involved and it is very hard to do when =
several
communities
are involved. It is actually impossible to do without =
negotiating
what will be
that actual interop and what will be allowed and what will not =
be
allowed. I
may be wrong but it seems that the shift from peer to peer or a =
single
deployment
paradigm to interoperability between enterprises and =
different
deployment
have not happened yet.
We need to
get these kind of items to the top priority of the SIPPING =
working
group even
in the expense of not adding new features to SIP in order to make =
sure
that SIP
will really be something that all will feel convenient regarding =
its
interoperability.
Avshalom
Being one of the authors of the draft it =
is not
surprising that I fully
agree with
you. Thanks for your support.
I want to
emphasize several points:
* The IETF
can not expect that defining a protocol is the end of the =
work.
presence and
IM and other protocols that the IETF is currently defining are =
in
a much
higher level then TCP or UDP or any network protocol. The =
interop
issues are
not only technical but imply a lot of other concerns that need to =
be
solved in
order have a real interop.
* SIP
interoperability is not flying. It is very hard to do when components =
from
different
companies are involved and it is very hard to do when =
several
communities
are involved. It is actually impossible to do without =
negotiating
what will be
that actual interop and what will be allowed and what will not =
be
allowed. I
may be wrong but it seems that the shift from peer to peer or a =
single
deployment
paradigm to interoperability between enterprises and =
different
deployment
have not happened yet.
We need to
get these kind of items to the top priority of the SIPPING =
working
group even
in the expense of not adding new features to SIP in order to make =
sure
that SIP
will really be something that all will feel convenient regarding =
its
interoperability.
Avshalom
Being one of the authors of the draft it =
is not
surprising that I fully
agree with
you. Thanks for your support.
I want to
emphasize several points:
* The IETF
can not expect that defining a protocol is the end of the =
work.
presence and
IM and other protocols that the IETF is currently defining are =
in
a much
higher level then TCP or UDP or any network protocol. The =
interop
issues are
not only technical but imply a lot of other concerns that need to =
be
solved in
order have a real interop.
* SIP
interoperability is not flying. It is very hard to do when components =
from
different
companies are involved and it is very hard to do when =
several
communities
are involved. It is actually impossible to do without =
negotiating
what will be
that actual interop and what will be allowed and what will not =
be
allowed. I
may be wrong but it seems that the shift from peer to peer or a =
single
deployment
paradigm to interoperability between enterprises and =
different
deployment
have not happened yet.
We need to
get these kind of items to the top priority of the SIPPING =
working
group even
in the expense of not adding new features to SIP in order to make =
sure
that SIP
will really be something that all will feel convenient regarding =
its
interoperability.
Avshalom
Being one of the authors of the draft it is not =

    surprising that I fully
agree =
with you.=20
    Thanks for your support.
I want =
to emphasize=20
    several points:
* The IETF can not expect =
that defining=20
    a protocol is the end of the work.
presence and IM and=20
    other protocols that the IETF is currently defining are=20
    in
a much higher level then TCP or UDP or any =
network=20
    protocol. The interop
issues are not only =
technical but imply=20
    a lot of other concerns that need to be
solved =
in order have=20
    a real interop.
* SIP interoperability is =
not flying.=20
    It is very hard to do when components from
different companies=20
    are involved and it is very hard to do when =
several
communities are involved. It is actually =
impossible=20
    to do without negotiating
what =
will be that=20
    actual interop and what will be allowed and what will not=20
    be
allowed. I may be wrong but it seems that =
the shift=20
    from peer to peer or a single
deployment paradigm=20
    to interoperability between enterprises and =
different
deployment have not happened =
yet.
We=20
    need to get these kind of items to the top priority of the SIPPING=20
    working
group even in the expense of not adding =
new features=20
    to SIP in order to make sure
that =
SIP will really=20
    be something that all will feel convenient regarding =
its
interoperability.
Avshalom