Document: draft-agrawal-sip-h323-interworking-reqs-07.txt Review: Spencer Dawkins Date: 1 december 2004 Umm, I THINK the Designated Right Answer is that there's no IETF working group that's chartered to think about SIP-H.323 interworking, so there's no objection, right? If I was worrying about anything more than this, I'd be worrying about - an individual submission RFC with RFC 2119 MUST requirement language (how can this *not* be misleading?) - limited functionality in call flows and omission of supplementary services (I'm not the only one who noticed, because this was pointed out in http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/00jul/SLIDES/sip-h323-reqs/sld011.htm at IETF 48) - encouraging ("MAY") "a translation table to resolve the H.323 and SIP addresses to IP addresses" - isn't this the VoIP equivalent of hosts.txt? I actually like this document, and I wish a WG was pushing back on these issues, because the result would be an improved document. I was on a two-hour call with a Tier One carrier this afternoon talking to them about their SIP-H.323 interworking requirements, so I think the topic matters. Are we just saying it doesn't matter in the IETF? (signed) Confused, who can't find a single AD comment in the ID tracker for this document...