I don't believe we could ever forbid INFO. I initially did not think we could accomplish anything around INFO, but I believe some of the work that's on the table would be useful for working towards interoperabilty for the INFO usages. I would be afraid to ask honestly for the identification of all the different uses of INFO that are out there right now.
Doing something is better than nothing at this point IMHO and I'm personally really tired of revisiting this issue every couple of years. AND, this would help us put a stake in the group on the future usages of INFO (whether we ever get rid of the old usages or not), as I believe there are other SDOs defining new uses of INFO right now to add to the mix of un-interoperability in this area. My two cents, Mary. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 12:34 PM To: Robert Sparks; Paul Kyzivat Cc: [email protected]; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO and what to do about it? Hi Robert, INFO is out there, true, and I am not sure we can do much about that. I don't think the intention is to standardize the current usages. I think the idea of the framework is for FUTURE INFO usages. Because, I don't think we can assume there won't be more usages in the future than we currently have - even if we would try to "forbid" INFO. Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks Sent: 23. kesäkuuta 2008 20:28 To: Paul Kyzivat Cc: [email protected]; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO and what to do about it? 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 _______________________________________________ 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
