> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean > Willis > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 12:16 AM > > > > 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.
The EXACT same thing could be said for deprecating/outlawing info: "We can just restrict the 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. > > That sounds like a vote for defaulting and publishing Eric's original > "Why you shouldn't use INFO for anything" draft. Ummm... I don't see how that solves the: "But then all existing deployments will be incompatible with it" concern. All existing deployments would _still_ be incompatible with such a "don't-use info" draft. Or is the argument: "there would be no way to make this backwards compatible"? I think it would be backwards compatible. -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
