Robert,
I will agree that the scenario you pose is a possibility. And if it
seems probable then we should do nothing.
The carrot we could offer would be the registry. New usages would get
into the registry, but new usages of INFO without the framework would
not be eligible for the registry.
Whether that is perceived as a carrot is an open question. It may be
that most existing usages that haven't come through ietf don't *wish* to
be public. If not, then there is nothing we can do.
Paul
Robert Sparks wrote:
inline
On Jun 24, 2008, at 9:00 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
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.
Well, if we don't think banning INFO as a whole would be listened to,
why do we think banning INFO that doesn't use this new framework would
be listened to?
That's where I'm having difficulty with the question. I can see the bite
of work it would take to make the framework.
I'm still trying to see what would actually use it if we did?
Can somebody list the packages that we've already identified that we
would put out with this framework?
I think that would be better than the current situation, and about as
good as we can expect to achieve.
I'm still not convinced it makes it better. One outcome I can see from
following this path is two years from now finding ourselves with no
actual packages using the framework and a set of _new_ INFO based
applications in the field that _don't_ use the framework.
Will we continue to put those in this proposed registry above? Or do we
just have another set of practices that we have to treat the current
non-standardized INFO uses with now?
The bet we would be placing by putting the work into creating this
framework is that it actually takes some motivation away from using a
non-standard bare INFO to realize some new application (and that there
are new applications out there where this would be a really good tool to
have to realize them). Is this framework really lowering a barrier to
entry or relieving some other pain so that the people who would
otherwise make a new non-standard use of INFO come use it? I'm having a
really hard time seeing that.
If we end up on the wrong side of that bet, we've arguably made things
_worse_ taking work away from other things, creating mechanics that have
to be implemented, tested and will ultimately be abused, and not solving
the actual problem in the first place.
So, I'll continue to look for some evidence this will actually get used
and relieves some pressure to just go use INFO in a proprietary way and
skip all this standards pain (hopefully folks here can help me with this).
Without it, I think the better path would be to create the registry you
describe, publish an informational document pointing out the pitfalls of
the approaches they take, and get on with other work.
I'll also, of course, accept a community decision to just do this work
and take the risk of losing the bet and help make sure we build the best
framework possible if that's where we really want to go. I just hope
somebody can convince me we're not trading off other work we could be
benefiting from more to find ourselves in effectively the same position
two years from now.
RjS
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
