Dean Willis wrote:
But, so far we haven't been interested in looking into these issues. We
just say that using INFO is against the spirit of SIP, it causes all
kind of problems etc etc.
Not at all. I've said we need a registry of usage contexts that defines
what specific content types and dispositions mean within that context
usage. Lacking that, the safe thing is not to use INFO. I think Paul has
said exactly the same thing, and that's pretty much what Jonathan has
said -- although I think Jonathan is leaning more towards the "since
defining these usages is hard, let's not use INFO" model.
I'm a little closer to the Jonathan position. I don't necessarily object
to clarifying the use of INFO for some purpose, if that is the best way
to do something.
But in the case of DTMF work was already done. INFO was proposed and
rejected in favor of SUB/NOT. Somebody has to make a case that the
existing solution isn't good enough, and that another one is needed.
Now I know that INFO is in use out there, by products of my own company
among others. Those are *legacy* things. AFAIK they were done before the
KPML solution was devised. We don't necessarily standardize them just
because they are out there. People will implement them as needed.
Paul
_______________________________________________
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
