Summary
IP telephony gateways decomposition using master/slave protocols such as
MGCP, MEGCO, or H.248 require specific packages in “softswitches” that are,
by all measure, vendor-specific and may change by release versions. Close,
proprietary coupling between components have limitations for nontelephony
services. They also have the disadvantage of proprietary bundling and intro-
duce added complexity for network operators.
By contrast, the component server architecture allows interaction between
large numbers of loosely coupled, specialized servers across the Net. The com-
ponent server architecture can provide access to all services using the Web,
e-mail, and voice, relying only on the basic standard Internet protocols HTTP,
SMTP, SIP and RTP. IVR, or VoiceXML service call flows are straightforward
using third-party call control to direct incoming calls to the appropriate
servers.
References
[1] McGraw-Hill Series on The Intelligent Network Standards, Their Application to
Services, I. Faynberg, L. Gabuzda, M. Kaplan, and N. Shah. McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1997.
[2] “Gateway Control Protocol Version 1” C. Groves et al. RFC 3525. IETF, June
2003.
[3] “ An Application Server Component Architecture for SIP” J. Rosenberg at
al. Internet Draft, IETF, March 2001.
[4] “Best Current Practices for Third-Party Call Control (3pcc) in SIP” J. Rosen-
berg et al. RFC 3725, IETF, April 2004.
[5] “Voice Extensible Markup Language (VoiceXMLTM) Version 1.0,” The
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), May 2000. http://www.w3.org/TR/
voicexml.
[6] “Control of Service Context using SIP Request-URI” B. Campbell and R.
Sparks. RFC 3087, IETF, April 2001.
[7] “Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) URIs for Applications such as Voicemail
and Interactive Voice Response (IVR)” C. Jennings et al. IETF RFC 4458,
April 2006.
SIP Component Services 337