Spencer - I can't tell if you thought I was saying to hold moving
info-harmful forward until
we had better answers or not - I wasn't. I'm saying we aren't done
just by moving it forward.
It will help on its own, but we'll have to get to the guidance part
quickly for it to really help much.
RjS
On Jun 8, 2007, at 4:34 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
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
