What do you mean by 'information related to the session usage'?
I'll also take this opportunity to remind people of the reasons I think
moving forward with more INFO usages is a bad idea:
http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-rosenberg-sip-info-harmful-00.txt
-Jonathan R.
Robert Sparks wrote:
I've been getting a lot of offline questions asking for the "right" way
to carry information related to the
session-usage (often information that's being tunneled around from
companion or gatewayed protocols).
What we've got sitting around right now is probably not enough if we
don't want a new wave of things using INFO. We
need at least an easily findable explanation of why with a pointer to
which other tools would be better considered
for different types of applications.
RJS
On Jun 1, 2007, at 3:19 PM, DRAGE, Keith ((Keith)) wrote:
(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
_______________________________________________
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
--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FAX: (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com
_______________________________________________
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
