Just a couple more points of clarification on my view embedded below [MB]. Mary
-----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 8:25 AM To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00) Cc: Christer Holmberg; Robert Sparks; Paul Kyzivat; [email protected]; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO and what to do about it? 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. [MB] My guess (based on what I've seen) is that a lot of vendors would have around a half dozen (+- 2). Now, some of those might overlap given there is some level of interop between various vendors. [/MB] 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? [MB] My experience is that at least half the uses of INFO were in place when the protocol was quite immature (i.e., well before RFC 3261). And, we indeed should listen to our customers by providing a flexible platform for them to do the things they need to do. IMHO, it's been loud and clear in the past that they want to use INFO and in the past, docs like "Info considered harmful" weren't helpful towards this end. [/MB] > > 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. [MB] I'm not at all disagreeing on this point. Optimistically, I'd like to see the current implementations evolve to support this new approach as it will improve interoperability. If the WG can complete this work in a timely manner (perhaps the biggest issue given past performance), then the potential for uptake for a standardized implementation is INFO is far higher IMHO. If we can get this work chartered, then we're far more likely to get uptake by the other SDOs far sooner than if we continue to dillydally. And, it's important to remember that this isn't the only area where there are interoperability issues. And, actually, per SFSIW-1 the use of INFO was not a common theme - either because it was a given or it's not as big an issue as some of us are assuming - in a quick scan I only found one document discussing the use of INFO. [/MB] -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
