On Jul 7, 2008, at 11:13 AM, Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC wrote:
Dan:
The things that you are saying primarily is this: Present
implementations by different vendors. If this is what you want as
you major objective, you got it.
What IETF wants is this: INTEROPERABILITY. It is the long term
objective.
DY> 100% agreed! I *don't* want the mess we have today.
DY> But by the same token, there's not much in the short-term that we
as the IETF can do about the current mess unless we are prepared to do
the dramatic step of killing off INFO (and then somehow mystically
getting the vendors to go along with it and actually drop INFO
support, which I can't see even remotely happening). INFO is out
there... people are using it as a simple messaging channel and are
doing all sorts of things with it. Simplicity is useful.
DY> I agree with all those who have said the best we can do is to
provide a "recommended" way to use INFO with the carrot being that if
you do it that way you will have interoperability. I agree with the
idea that we should have a prominent registry that shows registrations
that use the IETF-recommended way of using INFO. Only those usages
that use the recommended way should be in that registry.
DY> However, I do think there is also value in perhaps a *separate*
registry that documents existing non-standard and non-interoperable
usages of INFO for a couple of reasons. First, we gain a better
understanding of the problem space and exactly how people are using
INFO. Perhaps out of that we'll learn where other protocols could be
improved so that people would not choose using INFO. Perhaps we'll see
gaps that could benefit from standardization.
DY> Second, we may prevent further proliferation/creation of new INFO
uses. Someone looking to use INFO in their application might find the
first registry (standard, interoperable) and not find the particular
usage they are after there. With the second registry (non-standard,
non-interoperable) they might find a usage there and use that one.
Yes, we now have a vendor using a non-standard, non-interoperable
usage of INFO, but at least they have not gone off and created yet
another non-standard, non-interoperable INFO usage. If we can limit
the proliferation of new INFO uses, then there may be more of a chance
of helping move some of those usages over to standardized,
interoperable uses over time.
DY> Now, to encourage adoption of the standard, interoperable uses, I
would suggest that the web page for this second registry be titled
something like "NON-STANDARD, NON-INTEROPERABLE USES OF SIP INFO" with
some explanatory text at the top that explains why it would be better
to use the standard, interoperable INFO uses and provides a pointer
over to that registry.
Regards,
Dan
--
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com
Build voice applications based on open standards.
Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free
_______________________________________________
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
