On Dec 7, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
There is, though, another aspect to this. As we all know, interoperability is a major SIP issue, and even if we discourage INFO use we know it will be used. So an unresolved question in my mind is whether we should define at least how such proprietary use can be signaled, to avoid vendor-specific static configuration profile proliferation making interop harder. In other words: not accept draft proposals for INFO use, not be bothered with repeating these discussions anymore in the IETF, etc.; but at least give them a standardized way to negotiate it so their UAs can interoperate with legitimate IETF-following UAs without needing configuration.
I agree completely. There are arguably some good uses for INFO, and very likely there will be people who choose to do very silly things with it. I really don't want to waste SIP working group time deciding which are which. I just want to set up a framework that keeps all these uses, good or bad, silly or ingenious, from stepping on each other.
The only question in my mind is whether the registry for INFO package names should be "specification required" or "First come, first served".
-- Dean _______________________________________________ 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
