Callflows: they're such a double-edged sword. They do a good job of quickly explaining something, but can't cover off all the vagaries of the spec. They do such a good job, in fact, that it's not uncommon for implementors to simply implement the easy-to-understand call flow thinking they've captured all of the important bits of the underlying specifications; that they never properly check to see that they've, in fact, actually implemented the spec correctly at all.
If we're going to include those, then there needs to be a considerable amount of warning text exhorting the reader to use the callflows as a study aid for the specifications and not as a substitute. Regards, Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 8:48 PM > To: Peter Saint-Andre; Stucker, Brian (RICH1:AR00) > Cc: sip; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Sip] RAI-ART Review Comments for > draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide > > Do you believe that the call/session flows are normative or > informative? > > > RFC 3665 call/session flows are very good illustrative > examples, but do not really depict real deployments (measured > in number of calls). > > And further, RFC 3666 does not interoperate with the PSTN, > thereby not a good example. > > Cheers, > > Martin > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 7:19 PM > To: Brian Stucker > Cc: sip; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Sip] RAI-ART Review Comments for > draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide > > Brian Stucker wrote: > > <snip/> > > Sorry to hijack this thread, but I'd like to second a comment > that Mary Barnes made during the WGLC: > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg20981.html > > *** > > It seems that all the call flow BCPs are missing and I do > think those are really important and should be included in > this document. The only BCP (type (B) document) listed in > this document is 3PCC. The basic call flow document (RFC > 3665) should be listed in section 3 (Core SIP). The PSTN > call flows (RFC 3666, BCP 76) should be in PSTN Interworking > section 4. The SIPPING NAT scenarios document should be in > the NAT section 6. These docs are all icing on the cake IMHO > and help to guide implementers in using all the other docs. > > *** > > I agree that the call flow documents are very useful and that > a reference to them would be a good thing. > > Peter > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.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
