& cplSiteName &

IMS & Stockholm Syndrome

Light Ranting
Light Ranting
Light Ranting
7/26/2005

12:45 PM -- While we flood you with IMS-related content this week, perhaps it's sensible to share some airtime with a clever warning about being held "captive" to the hype.

This warning comes from John G. Waclawsky, PhD, senior technical staff, Wireless Group, Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO). Waclawsky, writing in the July issue of Business Communications Review, compares the fervor over IMS to the "Stockholm Syndrome," a term that comes from a 1973 hostage event in which hostages became sympathetic to their captors.

Waclawsky says a form of the Stockholm Syndrome has taken root in technical standards groups, which he calls "System Standards Stockholm Syndrome," or S4.

Here's a snippet from Waclawsky's column:

    What causes S4? Captives identify with their captors initially as a defensive mechanism, out of fear of intellectual challenges. Small acts of kindness by the captors, such as granting a secretarial role (often called a “chair”) to a captive in a working group are magnified, since finding perspective in a systems standards meeting, just like a hostage situation, is by definition impossible. Rescue attempts are problematic, since the captive could become mentally incapacitated by suddenly being removed from a codependent environment.
Good stuff. I wonder how this got through Cisco's PR filter.

The full article can be found here — R. Scott Raynovich, US Editor, Light Reading

(9)  | 
Comment  | 
Print  | 
Related Stories
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 3:07:15 AM
re: IMS & Stockholm Syndrome

Cisco bashing the ITU and claiming the IETF and even the IEEE are better. Who would believe such a thing????!!!!????

seven
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 3:07:02 AM
re: IMS & Stockholm Syndrome

IF you would actually read the article, he was complaining about the slow pace of the ITU. What does this have to do with Ericsson? I do think they seem to make a lot of money in Wireless.

seven
alchemy
alchemy
12/5/2012 | 3:07:02 AM
re: IMS & Stockholm Syndrome
brookseven writes:
Cisco bashing the ITU and claiming the IETF and even the IEEE are better. Who would believe such a thing????!!!!????

Given the gigantic product gap between Ericsson and Cisco for VoIP and convergence products targeted at service providers who actually plan to make money from selling their services, Stockholm Syndrome is quite +Š propos.

Does San Jose Syndrome have the opposite symptoms to Stockholm Syndrome? Dogmatic refusal to believe that customers might want some other more hardened solution to their problem...
dljvjbsl
dljvjbsl
12/5/2012 | 3:07:01 AM
re: IMS & Stockholm Syndrome
Ericsson is leading the charge in IMS and Cisco has no alternative but to ridicule the effort since it's counter to their dogma of how SIP networks are supposed to behave. Cisco clearly has no shortage of bright, witty people walking around. Do you need somebody to explain the joke to you?

Attending SIP and SIPPING working group meetings in several locations a couple of years ago, I saw the SIP in-group led by Rosenberg et al discussing IMS type concepts with representatives from 3GPP. I remarked privately at the time that 3GPP seemed to have taken over the SIP effort.

I thought at the time that what was being proposed was not that materially different from the basic SIP architecture. However I was not aware that there was a secret plan to take the SIP architecture which could produce useful applications and subvert it to become IMS which is a clone of AIN. AIN was deployed but failed to produce useful customer applications.

So I would guess that the SIP in-group attempted to work with 3GPP since they saw that as a way of making money. However when 3GPP tried to turn SIP into an AIN clone then they parted company.


alchemy
alchemy
12/5/2012 | 3:07:01 AM
re: IMS & Stockholm Syndrome
brookseven writes:
IF you would actually read the article, he was complaining about the slow pace of the ITU. What does this have to do with Ericsson? I do think they seem to make a lot of money in Wireless.

I thought the "Stockholm Syndrome" pun was a very clever turn of phrase given that Ericsson is leading the charge in IMS and Cisco has no alternative but to ridicule the effort since it's counter to their dogma of how SIP networks are supposed to behave. Cisco clearly has no shortage of bright, witty people walking around. Do you need somebody to explain the joke to you?
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 3:07:00 AM
re: IMS & Stockholm Syndrome

Yep, I see the whole IETF as a joke. The IETF motto is:

"Follow our wonderfully open standards, but to actually deploy a product one must comply with the Cisco bugs."

That is neither open nor standard. However, it is fast.

seven
alchemy
alchemy
12/5/2012 | 3:06:57 AM
re: IMS & Stockholm Syndrome
dljvjbsl writes:
Attending SIP and SIPPING working group meetings in several locations a couple of years ago, I saw the SIP in-group led by Rosenberg et al discussing IMS type concepts with representatives from 3GPP. I remarked privately at the time that 3GPP seemed to have taken over the SIP effort.

I thought at the time that what was being proposed was not that materially different from the basic SIP architecture.


I guess it depends on what you think the IETF SIP architecture is. To me, the IETF SIP architecture is fully distributed call processing with intelligent endpoints and a very thin core. The core knows how to route. The core tracks state (presence and the like) and the intelligent endpoints can query the core to make decisions.

In the IMS architecture, the cell phone is dumb and the core is smart. The dialect of SIP it speaks is incredibly thin so a cell phone can't damage the core elements. IMS is extremely complex but it's still significantly less complex than trying to implement the equivalent functionality with the same level of hardening in the fully distributed control SIP model.
maxplanc
maxplanc
12/5/2012 | 3:06:57 AM
re: IMS & Stockholm Syndrome
G«™and subvert it to become IMS which is a clone of AING«™

I have worked with IMs product development for a major NEP for about 5 years and I have no particular experience with AIN. While I'm sure that you see many parallels with AIN, I see more with the enterprise move toward SOA. In fact, I see the IMS as an SOA that is user-centric versus the application-centric SOA that typifies the enterprise Web services approach.

I have read many posts on the LR boards discussing the "open" (meaning, I presume, G«ˇbenevolentG«÷) IETF architecture versus the "closed" (meaning, G«ˇevilG«÷) IMS architecture and I think there is an unfortunate assumption being made. Attempts at providing a secure, moderated, reliable and network-centric communications system composed of multiple independent managed domains which seamlessly interwork with clear delineation of operational responsibilities between them has nothing inherently to do with G«ˇcrass profitG«÷. It seems to me that even if the use of the system were free, the basic issues the IMS tries to solve are simply the byproduct of an attempt to define an functional global system for communication using the most efficient technology available that meets the requirements.

I'm sure you can tell me how the IMS is just like AIN but perhaps you'd have some trouble telling me how it's different. We all tend to see what you look for, perhaps.
dljvjbsl
dljvjbsl
12/5/2012 | 3:06:56 AM
re: IMS & Stockholm Syndrome
I have worked with IMs product development for a major NEP for about 5 years and I have no particular experience with AIN. While I'm sure that you see many parallels with AIN, I see more with the enterprise move toward SOA. In fact, I see the IMS as an SOA that is user-centric versus the application-centric SOA that typifies the enterprise Web services approach.

I can easily see how IMS is like AIN because it has components that handle AIN trigger points. However I am at a loss to see how IMS can be considered to be like an SOA.

SOAs consist of independent componets which mutually orchestrate their own behavior. I see very little of this in the IMS accounts that I read. I grant you that SOA would probably make a very good application layer for IMS since they are a very good way of creating applications. Howevrr I see very little that IMS would bring to the table that any standard CTI architecture would not.

IMS with its AIN underpinning operates at much too low a level to be of signficant value to a SOA. If it were cooupled to an SOA, the SOA would provide the value while IMS would be a routine piece of CTI plumbing.
More Blogs from Light Ranting
Our top ten stocks are up a little better than 7%
The FCC: achieving new levels of irrelevance
Can you pick the combo that beats Google?
The Top 10 Awards we didn't hand out last week
Content, the Internet, and intolerable people
Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events