Paul, The grandfathering is aa good suggestion and likely far more pragmatic than my optimistic approach that they'll evolve. I will go ahead and ping our folks and see how they feel about this. If others will do the same, I think we'll have some very interesting results.
Thanks, Mary -----Original Message----- From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:01 AM To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00) Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; Christer Holmberg; Robert Sparks; [email protected]; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO and what to do about it? 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
