SIP in higher education

[(Dennis Baron)]

Since we are having another SIP.edu Workshop next week
<http://www.internet2.edu/sip.edu/200507-workshop/> there will be no
call next week.  The next call will be Thursday, July 28, 2:00pm EDT.
Please send me any topics that you'd like on the agenda for future
calls.

                                Dennis

--------
SIP.edu Conference Call July 7, 2005

*Attendees*

Dennis Baron, MIT
Bob Bownes, Tello
Jeremy George, Yale
Ed Guy, Pulver
Jerry Keith, UC Riverside
Stephen Kingham, AARNet
Jeff Kuure, Internet2
Ben Teitelbaum, Internet2
Garrett Yoshimi, University of Hawaii

*Discussion*

Today's call is a follow-up discussion of the previous call, which
featured a presentation by Ben of various methods for contacting SIP
addresses with 12-key telephones.

Participants discussed the viability of using E.164 numbering, as well
as the benefits and drawbacks of various alternatives. The drawbacks
of E.164 were mentioned in the previous call, and include the external
administration and finite quantity of the numbers as well as possibly
regulatory concerns. However, E.164 is most compatible with existing
12-key phones, which will remain in use for quite some time.

The E.164 numbering system is also tied to geography more than to a
specific organization. One goal of SIP.edu is to assign numbers to a
person/organization rather than a geographically bound device. Any
solution should complement SIP.edu's goal of URI reachability while
maintaining compatibility with 12-key dialing.

Two-stage dialing of some sort is one possible solution. It would
provide much more flexibility than other dialing plans, but does not
allow for direct dialing. The first stage could consist of a university
specific number which would be able to route calls to participating
organizations. Organizations could then decide on an internal system
that suits their needs. However, any university specific system would
limit reachability and participation. This system would also require a
central authority to manage the first stage.

Other suggestions are for assigning unique ITAD numbers to every
organization. Number registration is open and available to everyone,
and the numbers are administered by IANA. These numbers would make
it easier to associate numbers with a particular university or
organization. However, the numbers could be long and not as easy to
split into component parts as E.164 numbers.

Participant's goals for any system include high reachability, limited
access codes, numbers that are manageable in terms of length, are
complementary to URI dialing, and not specific to universities. There
is no obvious single solution, as there are benefits and drawbacks to
all proposed systems. Issues still remain regarding central authorities,
two-stage dialing, E.164 compatibility, scalability, and the use of IVR
for call routing.

The next call will be Thursday, July 28th.