Hi Dale, My answer in your text. Regards, Marianne
-----Message d'origine----- De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Dale Worley Envoyé : mercredi 18 mars 2009 23:04 À : BLISS Objet : Re: [BLISS] TR: NewVersion Notificationfordraft-mohali-diversion-history-info-01 On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 09:21 -0500, Mary Barnes wrote: > And, the standardization of this document could well take longer than > it will take to complete 4244bis. Per my list of pros/cons, to be > correct and useful, this document is effectively standardizing > Diversion header, which is actually more work than what's being done > in the 4244bis and target-uri docs. So, you're waiting either way. The wretched reality is that you can't solidify interoperation between Diversion and History-Info until you get *both* headers defined, and everyone agrees that Diversion is not fully defined and the definition of History-Info needs to be revised. [MM] The matter is not to say if Diversion is fully defined, it is that the Diversion header is fully implemented. So, it could defined in 5 minutes as it has not to be updated. An historical document is enough. About History-Info, I think it is yet late to revise History-Info but better late than never. The fact is that implementors are yet working on its implementation (and it is yet implemented for some of them) and they need this interworking today (if not yesterday). If the RFC4244bis is backward compatible, there is no issue standardizing the interworking from now and the interworking could be udated easily to be in line with the new History-Info.[/MM] As for which header occupied the promised land first, it's not immediately clear: draft-levy-sip-diversion-08 existed in 2004, and draft-barnes-sipping-history-info-02 existed in 2003. [MM]First, I AM NOT COMPARING THOSE HEADERS. You are raising an useless point. We want to move forward and not to say if v08 of one was before v02 of the other (but for your information, first Diversion draft existed in oct 2000 and first History-Info draft existed in oct 2002 and becames RFC4244 in 2005). Both headers are differents and History-Info has a larger scope than Diversion, that's why it has been standardized. Because discussions were too long, Diversion header was widely implemented. That is the facts and it is the only reason why we need an interworking guideline if we want that H-I header becomes the only implemented solution.[/MM] Any even slight official blessing of conversion between the two will lead people to consider that SIP supports both headers equally, which increase the complexity of the protocol and implementations. [MM]If it is "necessary" to standardize Diversion header, it is recommended to make an historical document.[/MM] On the other hand, there is no reason that the *work* can't go on, even if it receives no support from the IETF. Indeed, it's clear that there are market support for doing the work, which means that the work *will* go on. We can exploit that -- Let us delay *official* recognition until it's clear whether the interoperation will work well or badly. Since operators *will* get experience defining and using interoperation, we can make the big decisions when we know better what the consequences are. [MM] This work has yet been done with operators and implementors. Since the draft was available, everybody could do comments. The only thing to do if we have to wait is to update the document according to RFC4244bis but in my opinion, it will be late.[/MM] Dale _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
