(As WG chair) Is anyone out there interested in pursuing this?
If we did something, it would probably be an update to RFC 3427, and I don't see an awful lot of WG resources being consumed if we did, i.e. no impact on our existing workload. However, if we wrote it, would anybody that matters respect it? Does it solve any current issues? Regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:01 PM > To: Dean Willis > Cc: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Jon Peterson; ext Cullen Jennings > Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO message belongs only to INVITE dialog usage? > > Hi, Dean, > > > However, RFC 2976 is considered to be somewhat > underspecified, and so > > far the only place we've further specified its usage is in the > > context of transporting binary data for telephony protocol > tunelling. > > We have a standing consensus to NOT use it for arbitrary > data at this > > time. If we were to start using it, we'd need to do something like > > the event-packages model for INFO. So don't use it, and you > won't have to deal with this . . > > . > > This is my understanding also, which makes me wonder why > http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-rosenberg-sip-info-harmful-00.html > didn't advance - I remember the early 00s as a time of > frantic IETF movement, so maybe things have settled down > enough to confirm the consensus? > > I am more comfortable if we nail down consensus when we can, > rather than pointing people to Jonathan's expired individual > draft for support. > > Other than changing Jonathan's contact information from > Dynamicsoft, were there other updates required? :-) > > Thanks, > > Spencer > > > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
