Mary Barnes wrote:
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.
I don't think we should be afraid of this at all.
There are (sometimes/often) good reasons why folks resort to these
solutions. Our job here at IETF is to ensure interoperability for the
SIP protocol. If we don't listen to our customers - the people who have
deployed and are actually using it - what purpose does our work serve?
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.
As long as SIP usage continues to rise, I suspect we will continue to
see more INFO usages. Just because we cannot fix what is broken in the
past, doesn't mean we should let it remain broken for the future.
-Jonathan R.
--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 499 Thornall St.
Cisco Fellow Edison, NJ 08837
Cisco, Voice Technology Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (408) 902-3084
http://www.cisco.com
_______________________________________________
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
