RFC compliance is not a problem, but still there are SP-specific requirements 
on how these RFCs are supported and what the SP expects from our side. Also 
important, what SP is going to send toward us :)

For example, the numbering plan. Calls to UK, for example, should not be 
0044.*, but 44.* with phone-context=national. I've got this information via a 
phone conversation, and not in a written document.


Everything works now, I'm just wondering if it's a standard practice to deliver 
such a poor documentation.







>________________________________
>From: Jean-Pierre Schwickerath <swi...@hilotec.net>
>To: swinog@lists.swinog.ch
>Cc: Stanislav Sinyagin <ssinya...@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 10:52 AM
>Subject: Re: [swinog] SIP gateway service documentation
>
>Hello Stan
>
>> The SP puts forward a number of requirements, such as
>> national/international context in To: field, then some special
>> requirements for CallerID privacy, etc. The problem is, we can't get
>> a document that describes the technical details of the interface, and
>> SP refuses to create such a document. All we've got is a number of
>> emails and some information from phone conversations.
>
>SIP and its extensions are fairly well standardized. Have a look at 
>http://www.packetizer.com/ipmc/sip/standards.html for an overview of
>those RFCs. 
>We all know the PBX manufacturers and their developers seldom fully
>comply to the standards so they should give you a good starting point
>on how it's supposed to be done. You will have to test each and every
>case with your SP unless he can garantee you he has implemented it
>fully standard compliant. 
>
>> Is it a common situation for such a service? Am I too naive with my
>> expectations to receive a fully documented service? If it were a
>> no-name lousy cheap service provider, I wouldn't ask :) 
>
>We never had any issues when connecting SIP trunks to a provider as
>long as they were using RFC compliant SIP (IMHO the RFC compliance is a
>major decision point when choosing the SP). And I second you on the
>point that the SP should document its extensions to the protocol if
>they are not standard compliant extensions.
>
>Regards
>
>Jean-Pierre
>
>-- 
>HILOTEC Engineering + Consulting AG - Langnau im Emmental
>Energietechnik und Datensysteme: Server, PCs, Linux, Telefonanlagen, 
>VOIP, Hosting, Datenbanken, Entwicklung, Komplettlösungen für KMUs
>Tel: +41 34 402 74 00 - http://www.hilotec.com/
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

Reply via email to