Subject: [Enum] A shameless plug for my new job.

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:39:22 -0400

NO I have not left NeuStar.
For quite some time I've been extremely interested in technical issues 
surrounding how IP-PBX's and Service Provider can interconnect.

The SIP Forum
http://www.sipforum.com/
has established a working group charged with:
This task group will produce one or more SIP Forum recommendations that 
define a common set of implementation rules for implementers who desire 
to interface an IP PBX with a SIP-enabled service provider. The 
recommendation(s) will specify which standards must be supported, 
provide precise guidance in the areas where the standards leave multiple 
options, supplement functionality gaps in existing protocols, and 
identify a baseline set of features that should be common to an IP PBX 
to service provider interface. Such guidelines will not preclude the 
implementation of additional SIP functionality and primitives that do 
not conflict with the common implementation rules of the recommendation(s).

For purposes of this task group a SIP-enabled IP PBX is defined as a 
private, multi-user communications system that supports a 
clearly-defined baseline set of SIP standards along with other 
(optional) protocols. At a high level, the interface to the service 
provider utilizes a combination of SIP signaling and media transport 
using RTP. The interface to end-users of the IP PBX can be SIP or any 
other protocol capable of establishing a voice session (such as SCCP, 
H.323, directly connected analog &#x201C;black phone&#x201D;, etc.) While vendor 
implementation choices vary (i.e. the PBX may be comprised of multiple 
servers and SIP endpoints), the SIP signaling exchanged with a service 
provider must be traceable to a single account identity, which may be a 
separate identity from users of the PBX. In this respect, the PBX is to 
be viewed logically as a single SIP user agent for the purposes of the 
interface specification. This does not preclude, however, the capability 
for media to be exchanged directly between the service provider and 
PBX-controlled IP endpoints such as IP phones and media terminal adaptors.

##########
I will be chairing this effort.
I believe its important and ultimately relevant to what the ENUM WG 
wants to accomplish over time.

The reason the SIP Forum is dealing with this issue is that SIPPING 
determined that such an activity is out of scope for an IETF working 
group and better handled in a industry working forum.

###########
This preliminary charter will change but I believe it is important work 
that may of you may be interested in. Information on the WG list is 
avaiable below. Particpitation in this WG will be under the same general 
terms and conditions that the ITEF operates under though the SIP Forum 
Intellectual policy has yet to be firmly estabilshed.

Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
Unsubscribe or edit options at:  http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg

--

Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   sip:57141 at fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683,  Fax: +1
815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: "Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:20:40 -0400

NNI and UNI, although work on the latter is just getting started.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: enum-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Richard Shockey
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:50 PM
> To: Stastny Richard
> Cc: enum at ietf.org; henry at sinnreich.net
> Subject: Re: [Enum] A shameless plug for my new job.
> 
> Stastny Richard wrote:
> 
> >Thanks for the clarification.
> > 
> >So the group is defining an UNI
> >  
> >
> precicely ..
> 
> > 
> >Are there any plans to set up a similar group to define a 
> NNI (PoI) or 
> >real VoIP Peering between Service Providers?
> >  
> >
> not in SIPForum .. ATIS in the US is starting to "talk". I'm 
> sure we're going to hear more about this at the voipeer BOF 
> on thursday.
> 
> > 
> >-richard
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> >Von: Richard Shockey [mailto:richard at shockey.us]
> >Gesendet: Fr 22.07.2005 16:13
> >An: Stastny Richard
> >Cc: enum at ietf.org; henry at sinnreich.net
> >Betreff: Re: [Enum] A shameless plug for my new job.
> >
> >
> >
> >Stastny Richard wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff NeuStar Inc.