Many people are still under the impression that DTMF should/can be done with INFO. For example: http://www.vonage-forum.com/ftopic5305.html I'm not even sure how many people are aware of RFC 4730 as it's quite new. However, RFC 4730 does not explain why DTMF should be done by event notification rather than INFO. This feature was missing for a long time in SIP so many implementations already have INFO with DTMF (I won't provide links for that, but it's easy to find via any popular search engine).
I also seem to remember a company, with a lot of experience with SIP that offered a few years ago to do floor control with INFO. Basically anyone who wants to do something proprietary without thinking about it too much will go for INFO. Since RFC 3265 came out things have improved because many realize event packages are a better solution. However, INFO is still considered a viable candidate for many of these solutions because it seems as an option SIP provides and perhaps even endorses. I assume it's because the INFO concept is very simple. Unfortunately INFO is required for SIP-T, therefore there is a valid usage. The options I see are: 1. Provide BCP (or WCP as stated below) for INFO. 2. Deprecate the current RFC and define INFO for SIP-T only. 3. Find another solution for SIP-T and wipe out INFO from SIP. 4. Find more cases that mandate INFO (are there any?) and redefine its scope. Gilad > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Langstaff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 3:49 PM > To: Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF); Spencer Dawkins; Robert Sparks; Jonathan > Rosenberg > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO message belongs only to INVITE dialog usage? > > Maybe "sip-info-harmful" should be the first "WCP" (Worst Current > Practice) document? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF) > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 08 June 2007 12:43 > > To: Spencer Dawkins; Robert Sparks; Jonathan Rosenberg > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO message belongs only to INVITE dialog usage? > > > > > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
