On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 09:21 -0500, Mary Barnes wrote: > And, the standardization of this document could well take longer than it > will take to complete 4244bis. Per my list of pros/cons, to be correct > and useful, this document is effectively standardizing Diversion header, > which is actually more work than what's being done in the 4244bis and > target-uri docs. So, you're waiting either way.
The wretched reality is that you can't solidify interoperation between Diversion and History-Info until you get *both* headers defined, and everyone agrees that Diversion is not fully defined and the definition of History-Info needs to be revised. As for which header occupied the promised land first, it's not immediately clear: draft-levy-sip-diversion-08 existed in 2004, and draft-barnes-sipping-history-info-02 existed in 2003. Any even slight official blessing of conversion between the two will lead people to consider that SIP supports both headers equally, which increase the complexity of the protocol and implementations. On the other hand, there is no reason that the *work* can't go on, even if it receives no support from the IETF. Indeed, it's clear that there are market support for doing the work, which means that the work *will* go on. We can exploit that -- Let us delay *official* recognition until it's clear whether the interoperation will work well or badly. Since operators *will* get experience defining and using interoperation, we can make the big decisions when we know better what the consequences are. Dale _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
