Mary,
My latest thought is that we should "grandfather" existing uses of INFO.
We would provide a registry of them, without blessing them or
standardizing their specifications. That would at least shine some light
in the dark corners.
At the same time, we would define the new INFO usage framework (still
TBD) and ban *new* INFO usages that don't follow it.
I think that would be better than the current situation, and about as
good as we can expect to achieve.
Thanks,
Paul
Mary Barnes wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
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
