Eric's document basically takes the second approach,
grandfathering all uses of INFO that are currently published
in an RFC or an active internet-draft, and forbidding any
others. The list is not long; I'll replicate it here:
1. RFC 3372
You want more than that, you really need packages.
Expand that list to include application/dtmf and I think you'll
largely end the debate.
It would be a lovely thing for this debate to end. Perhaps we could refocus
with that aim in mind. Since I'm Eric's instigator, I'm asking that we
remember how we got here.
In MEDIACTRL, we found ourselves Yet Again Explaining The Non-Use of INFO,
with general handwaving based on Jonathan's long-expired individual draft.
Jonathan is a smart guy, but One Long-Expired Individual Draft Does Not
Equal Consensus In SIP.
I asked about advancing the long-expired draft, but it's old enough that we
couldn't just WGLC it in SIP without changes. Eric took the lead on writing
a draft that COULD (in theory) be WGLCed in SIP - that's what's under
discussion.
From the Abstract
The purpose of the INFO request for the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP), as described by RFC 2976, is to provide mid-session SIP User
Agent (UA)-to-SIP UA application data transport. In the years since
the introduction of the INFO request, experience with the use of the
INFO request indicates a number of problems. This document explains
why there are INFO-based, proprietary protocols in the wild; the
flaws of using INFO; and explains why it is not possible to create a
framework to rescue INFO for general purpose use. Thus, this
document restricts the use of INFO to call establishment signaling,
as described in RFC 3372 (SIP-T).
If we could focus on Eric's draft, which does not deprecate existing
standards-track uses of INFO, that might get us to publication of a draft
that would discourage additional uses of INFO, and provide the explanation
for this, so that random RAI-area drafts (which aren't even in the SIP
working group) stop including text that explains Why We Aren't Using INFO -
text that may or may not reflect SIP working group consensus.
If someone wants to generate a draft on application/dtmf, and there is SIP
consensus to publish that draft, and to add application/dtmf to the
grandfathered list in Eric's draft, MEDIACTRL would still have a SIP
consensus draft that gets the INFO-or-not-INFO discussion out of the
MEDIACTRL draft, where it does not belong. IMO.
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
