-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/12/2010 07:45 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > 2009/5/19 Marc Petit-Huguenin <petit...@acm.org>: >> I mean a professional grade SIP stack, not the toy stacks >> that you can download on the Internet > > Your vision is really "great". It seems that your are proud of SIP > being so difficult to implement, and perhaps you think that SIP is > just for big vendors (those who can spent lot of time and money in > development).
No, I do not, quite the opposite in fact. But I really wish that SIP authors, either for proprietary or FOSS stack (and this apply in fact for all Internet protocols) really read and implement the RFCs, instead of cherry-picking what they like or not in them or - ultimate abomination - implement a standard by using the examples in them. How many stacks correctly implement the second paragraph of Section 18.1.1 of RFC 3261? Or RFC 3263 for that matter? My point is: Implementers have a duty to implement the standard strictly as it is written. If they disagree or do not understand some part of it, there is no shortage of people that will explain things. If you still disagree or do not understand, write an Internet-Draft to fix it or to explain it. That's the right thing to do. > > However you are right: lot of SIP stack available as free software are > not good enough, you can name them "toys" if you want. But let me ask > you a question: Do you know XMPP protocol? There are hundreds of > *good* XMPP implementations "available in internet" licensed as free > software, and most of them interoperate very well with each other. > > So, perhaps "internet people" coding XMPP stuff are better than > "internet people" coding SIP stuff? Or *perhaps* SIP is more much > difficult and complex to implement than XMPP? Or perhaps XMPP is a toy > and doesn't scale well as SIP does? (if so we should tell Google and > Facebook that they must change their IM protocol ASAP). I do not disagree with you, and XMPP is fine (I myself implemented it one time). > > > Anyhow it seems you already gave a good response to this problem: > > "I think that there is some lessons to learn from this failure. Don't > let the IETF design a protocol, there is too much big money influence > to have a protocol that serves the end-users. Instead design the best > protocol possible, write some FOSS code for it, give free access to > servers running it, grow the end-user base and then, and only then, go > to the IETF to standardize it. The small but powerful academic > population of the IETF will probably be on your side and the big money > population will have very little possibility to fuck up the protocol, > as the IETF is a pragmatic organization." Wow, someone read my blog... - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Personal email: m...@petit-huguenin.org Professional email: petit...@acm.org Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAky0gqMACgkQ9RoMZyVa61ei4gCeJJgRVTlbFPWfmy548BX6R7HH l74An0DASLIMa482rYeRokb/ZB4tfRFu =2kcq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
