> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ISTM that pieces of the specs, like tel, aren't implemented for a couple > of reasons: > - they are too hard to implement > - there isn't enough bang for the buck > - its just not understood > > Tel clearly isn't *hard* to implement. That rules out the first excuse, > and for the second implies that there isn't perceived to be much bang at > all, since the bucks are small. So I expect that either it just isn't > understood, or else there is perceived to be no benefit at all. > If we can demonstrate that there is value here then it seems like it > should be possible to get implementors to support it. But maybe I'm > being naive.
Well, under the "not enough bang for buck" category would be the "it sometimes fails" sub-type. I find that with many of the things in sip, because lots of equipment is already deployed, if a mechanism introduces a call failure probability it would have to have a really BIG benefit to overcome that. Using a TEL URI just isn't something that can be ignored, or negotiated. New devices introduced into an already deployed network have to work seamlessly with the legacy crap, or they don't get in. So it may well be that lots of devices are now able to handle TEL, and we'll just never know it due to this vicious cycle. :( -hadriel _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
