I agree with Hadriel on this one. I'm getting requests for different oddball uses of INFO all of the time, most of them driven by the need to interoperate with deployed applications. Creating real INFO packages would give us a way to increase the likelihood of interoperability for the different uses. Is it too late? Hard to say, but it is worth a shot.
James James Rafferty Product Line Director, Integrated Media Gateways Dialogic, Inc. 15 Crawford Street Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 433 9462 Mobile: 781 929 3895 Fax: 781 433 9268 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.dialogic.com This e-mail is intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. No waiver of privilege, confidence or otherwise is intended by virtue of communication via the internet. Any unauthorized use, dissemination or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, or are not named as a recipient, please immediately notify the sender and destroy all copies of this e-mail. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 2:16 PM To: Dean Willis; [email protected] Cc: Cullen Jennings; Jon Peterson Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO and what to do about it? [Not surprisingly] I also think we should just do it. I don't know if it will succeed, but the longer we wait the less the probability it will. Right now people have to provision devices to send XYZ thing in INFO, and different vendors are using different syntaxes/means for the same mechanism, and I loathe that. If we want to stop devices in the middle from meddling, we need to stop giving them reasons to. -hadriel > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean > Willis > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 12:09 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Cullen Jennings; Jon Peterson > Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO and what to do about it? > > I asked: > > > > We've been batting INFO around for many, many years now (like, 10 -- > > it predates the SIP working group). A couple of meetings back, we > > agreed that we would discuss use cases for INFO packages, and if we > > didn't find any consensus there, then we would go ahead and publish an > > "INFO Considered Harmful" RFC. > > > > We tried having this discussion at the last IETF, but that just didn't > > work out. > > > > Do we try again, or just give up and publish "INFO Considered > > Harmful"? > > > > Personally, I don't care anymore -- I just want to drive a stake into > > the heart of this undead-thing, cut off its head, stuff the mouth with > > holy wafers, and bury it at a crossroads somewhere. > > > > But this WG only slays by consensus, so what do you want? > > Several people (Jonathan, Mary, Christer, Paul) have responded to the > list with various things that added up to "Publish INFO packages AND > document the extension models for SIP". So far, nobody has suggested > otherwise. > > Does anybody want to do anything else? Speak now or forever visualize > whirled peas. > > -- > Dean > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
