How about this?
Define the new INFO usage framework, for new uses of INFO, along the
lines proposed by Hadriel and others. As part of that, establish a
registry or registries.
Incorporate into that a grandfather clause. If your usage of INFO
predated some specified date then it will be permitted to be registered,
but not standardized. Presumably the registration would have to be based
on Content-Type, since AFAIK that is all that really works for existing
usages. The registry for these grandfathered usages would have to point
to *some* specification of the usage. It could be be an individual
informational RFC, or a document by some other SDO. (What else would
make sense?)
Existing *standard* usages of INFO (the few there are) would also fall
under this grandfather clause. In that case there is an RFC to refer to.
*New* usages, after the specified date, would be ineligible for
registration under the grandfather clause. They would be required to use
the new formal usage mechanism.
(Damn, I'm allowing myself to be sucked into this again.)
Thanks,
Paul
Robert Sparks wrote:
Paul's two points resonate with me.
Does anyone expect that if we _did_ build a usage framework for INFO,
that we would somehow take the existing uses and retroactively declare
them standard and part of that framework without change?
If that were possible, what's the difference between that and just
documenting them as is and declaring them standard without this framework.
So I don't see how building this framework will solve the kind of
problem that Martin was punctation-charactering about.
As Paul points out, creating the framework might provide better
interoperability for some _new_ use, but the level of effort someone
would have to go through to get the usage standardized is not going to
be easier than standardizing it on its own. So having its not going to
do the person that wants a nifty new feature any real good.
If we had a truckload of things that would use the framework bursting at
the seams waiting for the framework, we'd all, I'm betting,
happily work very quickly to create it. I don't see this truckload of
things. The existing uses are out there and they're not going to change
(so far when I've asked folks with features build on INFO if they'd
change their code to use this framework once it existed, they've laughed).
So if we do anything at all, I'd favor finishing the work Paul started.
RjS
On Jun 21, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
I'm with Eric on this. I worked for awhile and the results seemed
futile, so I'm not overly motivated to start again. But if there is
some possibility of reaching a conclusion then I'll join in.
Certainly I agree with Martin that there are lots of deployments and
support for INFO in some form. But most of them are non-standard in
one way or another. And I think this leaves us in a Catch-22 situation:
- we can just bless unrestricted use of INFO. But that would serve no
purpose, and wouldn't enhance interoperability.
- or we can formalize rules for negotiating usages of INFO. That will
provide the potential of enhanced interop. But then all the existing
deployments will be incompatible with it.
Paul
DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS wrote:
Deployments and support of INFO is a reality, unlike some of the other
(@#$ in SIP.
So either you believe it is real, or you hide your head under the covers
and pretend that there are no ghosts in the closet. -----Original
Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 3:11 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO and what to do about it?
If people care, I'll work, but if nobody cares, I won't.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Cullen Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:49:00 To:Dean Willis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:[email protected], Jon Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO and what to do about it?
Personally, I'd like to see some coherent discussion around it in a
WG meeting then try to get to consensus on it. The totally number
of people bothering to follow the conversation at this point is
extremely low.
On Jun 18, 2008, at 10:08 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
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
