On 01/09/2009 12:26 PM, Victor Pascual Ávila wrote: > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla > <mico...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> On 01/08/2009 09:32 PM, Jiri Kuthan wrote: >> >>> Aymeric Moizard wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Jiri Kuthan wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I respectfully disagree -- the field has clearly shown that working >>>>> NAT traversal today is more valuable than message integrity and ICE >>>>> architecture both together. (Whcih happens to be my personal >>>>> preference too: getting over NATs today is more important to me than >>>>> any sort of securing free phone calls.) Generally I tend to prefer >>>>> priorities as articulated by live deployments. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I think we both agree on where we want to go. >>>> >>>> The difference is probably that current way SIP is used might be enough >>>> for you, but as a 10 years SIP endpoint stack builder, I'm just bored >>>> about using SIP over non transparent network. Not your fault... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I'm sorry to be so differently opinionated on this, particularly >>>>> because I like ICE esthetically as the "e2e" solution. However, >>>>> somehow in the Internet the things that are deployable today always >>>>> matter. (even if considered evil, such as NATs) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Don't be sorry. >>>> My intention for this thread was just to ask ser/kamailio/whatever to >>>> make sure the future will not be the same as the 10 past years. My >>>> intention was not to say "you are all wrong". >>>> >>>> >>> No problem at all -- it is indeed an uneasy question. >>> >>> The end-to-end-ness of ice seems appealing like say TCP does. TCP is robust >>> in that whatever happens in the network, smart software (quite complex >>> in fact) >>> in the end-devices can deal with it. So I keep asking myself why ICE is >>> getting so little traction if the same thing works for TCP. One of the >>> reasons >>> could be that it is a sort of backwards-compatibility problem, since in >>> a way >>> it is a layer 3/4 technology and changing IP/transport layer is just >>> painful. One >>> could also argue that it can't be fully e2e since it relies on network >>> via TURN, >>> even though as the last resort. >>> >>> It is not a clear bet to me -- in fact I fell a bit ashamed I may be >>> giving up >>> on ICE too early. Still I do. Does anyone have a memory of a technology that >>> was "clean", came late and surpassed "internet workarounds"? >>> >>> >> The question could be the other way around: does anyone remember another >> technology that needed so many patches and workarounds :-)? Just >> thinking about the number of RFCs and drafts coming to >> complete/recommend/give usage guidelines ... >> >> ICE came too late, the are millions of end user devices sold out there, >> without it. And as "workarounds" are in place, nobody will invest now >> (crisis :-) ?!?!) to replace them -- only the time will obsolete them. >> So we still have to stick to the solutions we have now. >> > > I agree with what Daniel says. However, if we keep stuck to the > solutions we have now we'll never obsolete them. > Completely true. It is scary that some technologies even obsolete look like never to be removed ... :-)
And from experience, for SIP, it has to get a new version number or a new name. It will be more attractive to be SIP3.0 compliant than SIP2.0 + RFCxyzw. SIP 2.0 is so vagues right now with lot of extensions/amendments and what is still must/should/may. Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://www.asipto.com _______________________________________________ Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
