Hi, I don't think it would be very helpful - at least not if it's supposed to "forbid" things which are largely depoloyed already (and have been so for a number of years already).
Regards, Christer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 3. kesäkuuta 2007 6:15 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO message belongs only to INVITE dialog usage? > > From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > (As WG chair) > > Is anyone out there interested in pursuing this? > > What is "this"? Do people think it would be genuinely > helpful to finish "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 > _______________________________________________ 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
