Dean Willis wrote:
>
> On Apr 15, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>
>> I'm also wondering if this thread would be better dealt with in the
>> BLISS WG.
>
> Perhaps. but I'm thinking that this thread is digging some very
> fundamental brokenness with how we've specified and implemented SIP,
> deep in the heart of the RFC 3261 series.
There is a relationship with Bliss here, but its complicated.
Here we are simply taking "features" as use cases for investigating the
adequacy of the fundamental mechanisms of SIP. We aren't so concerned
with the details of those features. So IMO this is a sip problem.
OTOH, if all the features we are using for use cases are totally bogus,
then maybe we are doing work to no useful purpose.
This is a matter of whether you think work should be driven from the
bottom up or the top down. IMO there is no single answer to that. Some
things need to be driven from the bottom up because there will be no
demand for a feature until it has been demonstrated to be useful. In
other cases top down is the way to get real world feedback into the system.
Paul
_______________________________________________
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
