Comments on: Teenage years are never easy http://blog.roychowdhury.org/2005/12/29/teenage-years-are-never-easy/ Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:18:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Sukumar Raghavan http://blog.roychowdhury.org/2005/12/29/teenage-years-are-never-easy/comment-page-1/#comment-13 Sukumar Raghavan Mon, 21 May 2007 11:36:00 +0000 http://iconverged.wordpress.com/2005/12/29/teenage-years-are-never-easy/#comment-13 I guess the link to OMA is supposed to point to http://www.openmobilealliance.org/ I guess the link to OMA is supposed to point to http://www.openmobilealliance.org/

]]> By: Arjun http://blog.roychowdhury.org/2005/12/29/teenage-years-are-never-easy/comment-page-1/#comment-12 Arjun Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:15:00 +0000 http://iconverged.wordpress.com/2005/12/29/teenage-years-are-never-easy/#comment-12 Sunil:<br/><br/>First, I must say I love the title "Teenage Years are never easy" - you need to get into marketing, my friend :-)<br/><br/>Now onto the rest of your comments:<br/><br/>I'll use the comment system, so that I don't start a new article:<br/><br/>You say:<br/>"Text based Protocol: Yes, SIP could have been XML based but THANK GOD it is not ASN.1."<br/><br/>My response: Spoken like a true application developer :-) You folks have no respect for optimization ! XML based SIP ? So 15000 bytes to complete a call handshake ? A protocol, if meant to be implemented end-end should be designed end-end. Sorry, XML does not cut it - try to sell that solution to handsets, for example.<br/><br/><br/>You say:<br/>"...Call Forwarding RNA should terminate in an intercept or ring forever? Or that Music On Hold is an "expected" feature in business applications all over the world?..."<br/><br/>Don't confuse presentation with service execution. We are talking call flow here. The set of messages, for example, that MUST happen if you do an attended transfer. How the transfer is _presented_ to the user (jingle bells, belly dancing or another mechanism) is a UI issue. At least then, you will have a _US_ seimens UA capable of talking to a _US_ vonage phone easily. Country variants will always exists - just like they did in PSTN. That does not imply a lack of need for a manadated minimal profile. ITU does that - so what's so special about IETF ?<br/><br/><br/>You say: "If you examine carefully, most of the complexities have to do with trying to model the PSTN in SIP."<br/><br/>No - absolutely not. SIP's bloat comes in implementing its primitives not the services on top.<br/><br/>You say: :E2E Architecture: I will let RFC 1958 speak for...."<br/><br/>Yes, well RFC 1958 talks about the advtanges of an Internet model. I am talking about the network that SIP is being deployed today, which is not end-end by nature. So not sure I see what 1958 explains for the non end-end networks.<br/><br/><br/>You say: "...Skype is a remarkably successful and proven business model"<br/><br/>That's like saying the US economy is a remarkable and proven business model. You don't prove a business model by making one year of profits. You prove a business model by making 5-10 years of continuous profits and riding at top of a disruptive world.(and in the case of world economy, a sustainable economy over 100 years is a proven model) If Skype still existed as a standalone (not bought out by ebay) it would be interesting to see how it could put up against the planned Y! voice service at such a cheaper rate. Sunil:

First, I must say I love the title “Teenage Years are never easy” – you need to get into marketing, my friend :-)

Now onto the rest of your comments:

I’ll use the comment system, so that I don’t start a new article:

You say:
“Text based Protocol: Yes, SIP could have been XML based but THANK GOD it is not ASN.1.”

My response: Spoken like a true application developer :-) You folks have no respect for optimization ! XML based SIP ? So 15000 bytes to complete a call handshake ? A protocol, if meant to be implemented end-end should be designed end-end. Sorry, XML does not cut it – try to sell that solution to handsets, for example.

You say:
“…Call Forwarding RNA should terminate in an intercept or ring forever? Or that Music On Hold is an “expected” feature in business applications all over the world?…”

Don’t confuse presentation with service execution. We are talking call flow here. The set of messages, for example, that MUST happen if you do an attended transfer. How the transfer is _presented_ to the user (jingle bells, belly dancing or another mechanism) is a UI issue. At least then, you will have a _US_ seimens UA capable of talking to a _US_ vonage phone easily. Country variants will always exists – just like they did in PSTN. That does not imply a lack of need for a manadated minimal profile. ITU does that – so what’s so special about IETF ?

You say: “If you examine carefully, most of the complexities have to do with trying to model the PSTN in SIP.”

No – absolutely not. SIP’s bloat comes in implementing its primitives not the services on top.

You say: :E2E Architecture: I will let RFC 1958 speak for….”

Yes, well RFC 1958 talks about the advtanges of an Internet model. I am talking about the network that SIP is being deployed today, which is not end-end by nature. So not sure I see what 1958 explains for the non end-end networks.

You say: “…Skype is a remarkably successful and proven business model”

That’s like saying the US economy is a remarkable and proven business model. You don’t prove a business model by making one year of profits. You prove a business model by making 5-10 years of continuous profits and riding at top of a disruptive world.(and in the case of world economy, a sustainable economy over 100 years is a proven model) If Skype still existed as a standalone (not bought out by ebay) it would be interesting to see how it could put up against the planned Y! voice service at such a cheaper rate.

]]>