Hi, People are implementing INFO usages WITHOUT submitting draft-newbie-sip-whatever-over-info-00.
And, when looking at which companies are doing it, it can be discussed whether all of them can be considered being "SIP newbies"... But, that's another issue. Regards, Christer > -----Original Message----- > From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 8. kesäkuuta 2007 14:34 > To: Robert Sparks; Jonathan Rosenberg > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO message belongs only to INVITE dialog usage? > > Hi, Robert/Jonathan, > > > On Jun 7, 2007, at 12:31 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: > > > >> What do you mean by 'information related to the session usage'? > > > > Ugh - that's what the parenthetical below way trying to talk about. > > Stuff like digits in INFO (which we say should be done with KPML > > instead). > > Stuff like capturing data out of a protocol on the other side of a > > gateway an tunneling it to either an application or to another > > gateway. > > Stuff like data out of the media channel (collected an an IVR > > perhaps) that needs to be passed to an application server > that's not > > on the media path. > > More stuff than I think it will be worth trying to build clarity > > around for this conversation. > > > > My point was to _agree_ with what's in sip-info-harmful > (you see that > > Dean also called that out early in the thread) and to note that we > > don't have the reasoning that's there stated strongly enough in an > > easy to stumble across place and without that, people are going to > > continue to find new ways to fill the tubes with INFO requests. > > Two separate issues, both important... > > > (We need _more_ than just what's in your draft - we also need > > Jonathan may remember that I asked about his draft in > discussions about the hitchhiker's guide. The answsr was, of > course, that we didn't have a reasonable reference to the > draft, so couldn't tell people who were trying to learn about > SIP "don't go there" (until, of course, they "go there" and > submit draft-newbie-sip-whatever-over-info-00). > > So at the very least, we need an RFC number that's not in the > draft now! > > > guidance for people who are wanting to do new things with INFO that > > points them to what we consider sane alternatives > > instead.) > > It would be OK with me if we ALSO had this type of guidance > ("don't look HERE, look over THERE") available ("stated > strongly enough in an easy to stumble across place"), but if > coming up with that guidance takes more than about a week, I > don't see a lot of reason to hold up on "don't go there" > while we explore alternatives. > > <rant>If we don't progress stuff like this, we can't be > surprised when the experts spend all their time explaining > the same stuff over and over again, onlist. New participants > don't want to repeat old bad ideas. They have plenty of > opportunities to come up with NEW bad ideas. This is a SIP > community responsibility, not just Jonathan's and not just > the chairs' > responsibility. Jonathan did his part (in 2003), and Dean > points to this draft about once a month. We need to find a > way to move past lather-rinse-repeat about long-time > semi-documented consensus. > > IMO. Of course. > > </rant> > > > RjS > > > >> > >> 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
