Dan:

I would not see any dis-agreement with your approaches. Let us see what is 
actually proposed in the incoming INFO proposal drafts: Interim solutions (may 
be non-Interoperable) and Long-Term Interoperable solutions.

BR/Radhika

----- Original Message -----
From: Dan York 
Date: Monday, July 7, 2008 12:30
Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO and what to do about it?
To: "Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC" 
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg , [email protected], "DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS" , Paul 
Kyzivat , Mary Barnes , Christer Holmberg 

> 
> 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

Reply via email to