> You seem to be changing philosophy here. Not at all. The philosophy is very simple:
Use "simple SIP" - basically the rendezvous and session setup functions, be they CS or P2P. Everything else related to SIP applications and customer demands (I understand Jonathan's desire) can be better accomplished with API's, SDKs, IDE's and various tool kits as is customary in the industry. (Unfortunately we have other tools: Concept papers, frameworks, etc.) This presumes however respecting the e2e Internet principle, the "dumb network" architecture and the applications in the endpoints. Henry On 6/24/08 11:05 AM, "Paul Kyzivat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Henry, > > You seem to be changing philosophy here. These existing uses of INFO are > *running code*. Why doesn't that make them the good candidates for > standardization? > > Paul > > Henry Sinnreich wrote: >>> If we don't listen to our customers - the people who have >>> deployed and are actually using it - what purpose does our work serve? >> >> This is what the managers of the typewriter business must have said when the >> word processors appeared: "Our customers ask for a white-out ribbon and for >> a price under $500." >> >> A PC at that time cost $5,000 and the additional laser printer was another >> $5,000. >> >> Some companies opted for the PC business nevertheless and did NOT listen to >> their customers. >> >> Does anyone care for simple SIP that can be understood by developers with >> limited time on their hands? >> >> Henry >> >> >> On 6/24/08 6:25 AM, "Jonathan Rosenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ 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
