I never said across the industry it has not been implemented - I know it has by some because we have to convert it for some. I think the reason it hasn't gained dominance is because Diversion was done first by many, and if it ain't broke they have no reason to fix it compared with other priorities; or it just takes them years to do such things and get it deployed.
-hadriel > -----Original Message----- > From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:20 PM > > Well, we do advise the products to implement History-Info and the one > that I was responsible for in the past does implement all three > (including the remote-party-id solution). > > On your last point, it's not clear to me the reason why folks haven't > implemented it, other than that it's just in the pile of stuff that they > haven't implemented. And, it's not all the members of SIP Forum that > haven't implemented it (perhaps the subset that are currently > contributing to the SIP Connect spec). There is a handful of vendors > that interop with one of our products (that I know has implemented HI) > that do implement it, as well. So, I don't think it's fair to say across > the industry it has not been implemented. > > Now, I can see folks not wanting to implement it from the perspective > that there are already a number of core interop issues per your interop > document, thus there's really no point in adding something like HI when > the basics are broken. But, that's a broader problem and kinda takes us > to Dean's tricycle analogy on the RAI list. > > Mary. _______________________________________________ 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
