2009/5/19 Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email protected]>: > I mean a professional grade SIP stack, not the toy stacks > that you can download on the Internet
Your vision is really "great". It seems that your are proud of SIP being so difficult to implement, and perhaps you think that SIP is just for big vendors (those who can spent lot of time and money in development). However you are right: lot of SIP stack available as free software are not good enough, you can name them "toys" if you want. But let me ask you a question: Do you know XMPP protocol? There are hundreds of *good* XMPP implementations "available in internet" licensed as free software, and most of them interoperate very well with each other. So, perhaps "internet people" coding XMPP stuff are better than "internet people" coding SIP stuff? Or *perhaps* SIP is more much difficult and complex to implement than XMPP? Or perhaps XMPP is a toy and doesn't scale well as SIP does? (if so we should tell Google and Facebook that they must change their IM protocol ASAP). Anyhow it seems you already gave a good response to this problem: "I think that there is some lessons to learn from this failure. Don't let the IETF design a protocol, there is too much big money influence to have a protocol that serves the end-users. Instead design the best protocol possible, write some FOSS code for it, give free access to servers running it, grow the end-user base and then, and only then, go to the IETF to standardize it. The small but powerful academic population of the IETF will probably be on your side and the big money population will have very little possibility to fuck up the protocol, as the IETF is a pragmatic organization." Regards. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
