SIPPING WG                                                       R. Mahy
Internet-Draft                                               Plantronics
Intended status: Informational                             March 4, 2007
Expires: September 5, 2007


           Marketing Buzzword "SIPPING 16" Considered Harmful
                      draft-mahy-sipping-16-04.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) has become very popular, and
   with this popularity, the harmful misconceptions that there is a
   specific limit to the number of features that can be implemented
   using SIP primitives, and that informational documents produced by
   the SIPPING Working Group that show example call flows place
   restrictions on what can be implemented.  One especially catchy
   buzzword--The "SIPPING 16"--supposedly refers to the sixteen basic
   features of SIP.  This document describes why the mythical SIPPING 16



Mahy                    Expires September 5, 2007               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                 SIPPING 16                     March 2007


   does not exist, and where to find out more information about SIP
   features.


1.  Introduction

   The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [1] has become very popular,
   and with this popularity has come a variety of misconceptions about
   SIP in marketing literature, at conferences, and in the trade press.
   One particularly harmful misconception is that there is some magic
   limit to the number of phone-like features that can be implemented
   with SIP primitives, and that informational documents produced by the
   SIPPING Working Group that show example call flows place restrictions
   on what can be implemented.  One especially catchy buzzword--The
   "SIPPING 16"--supposedly refers to the sixteen basic features of SIP.
   Some vendors go so far as to make statements like "SIP only has 16
   features", as an excuse for a poor SIP implementation, or in order to
   steer customers to a proprietary approach.

   Of course, the "SIPPING 16" does not exist.  The vendors who have
   latched onto the "SIPPING 16" idea do not even agree on what the
   sixteen features are.  The IETF does not standardize features, and
   there is no finite limit on the number of features which can be built
   using the SIP protocol.  The concept of counting features is a
   vestige of the same dubious practice in the telephony community.
   This practice encouraged micro-fragmentation of features to inflate a
   total feature count which was used purely for marketing purposes.
   Meanwhile usability experts point out that human end-users of phone
   systems use only a handful of the total features available.  No end-
   user will ever have a desire to use every feature in a typical phone
   system, and many end-users do not use features that accomplish a
   useful function due to traditionally poor user interfaces in these
   systems.


2.  Discussion

   The SIPPING Working Group (which describes the usage of SIP as one of
   its core functions) has produced a number of informational documents
   to provide examples of how popular features from the telephony world
   can be implemented (for example: [3] and [4]).  These examples do not
   restrict the number or variety of features available, nor do they
   even represent an exhaustive set of examples implemented in shipping
   products.  (Note that as of this writing, most low-cost consumer SIP
   User Agents support many more than sixteen specific features.)
      The author of this document was asked once to comment on the
      "SIPPING 16" item mentioned in an RFI (Request For Information).
      Much to his chagrin, he eventually realized that the customer was



Mahy                    Expires September 5, 2007               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                 SIPPING 16                     March 2007


      referring to examples in the SIP Call Control Framework for which
      he was the editor at the time.

   In some cases, SIPPING has produced Best Current Practice documents
   (for example: [2] and [5]) to inform the implementation community
   about difficult design decisions and to encourage interoperability.
   These are necessarily rare, and are only published after a
   substantial amount of development experience has been acquired.


3.  Security Considerations

   Misconceptions about the readiness of the SIP protocol can delay
   deployment of SIP-based solutions.  SIP-based solutions typically
   support and use much stronger security than the proprietary systems
   they replace.  As a result, misconceptions which delay SIP-deployment
   will generally downgrade the effective security of phone systems and
   other real-time applications.


4.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires no action by IANA.


5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
        Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
        Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.

5.2.  Informational References

   [2]  Rosenberg, J., Peterson, J., Schulzrinne, H., and G. Camarillo,
        "Best Current Practices for Third Party Call Control (3pcc) in
        the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", BCP 85, RFC 3725,
        April 2004.

   [3]  Johnston, A., "Session Initiation Protocol Service Examples",
        draft-ietf-sipping-service-examples-12 (work in progress),
        January 2007.

   [4]  Mahy, R., "A Call Control and Multi-party usage framework for
        the Session Initiation  Protocol (SIP)",
        draft-ietf-sipping-cc-framework-06 (work in progress),
        March 2006.



Mahy                    Expires September 5, 2007               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                 SIPPING 16                     March 2007


   [5]  Sparks, R., "Session Initiation Protocol Call Control -
        Transfer", draft-ietf-sipping-cc-transfer-07 (work in progress),
        October 2006.


Author's Address

   Rohan Mahy
   Plantronics
   345 Encincal Street
   Santa Cruz, CA
   USA

   Email: rohan@ekabal.com





































Mahy                    Expires September 5, 2007               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                 SIPPING 16                     March 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Mahy                    Expires September 5, 2007               [Page 5]