Hi, Robert/Jonathan,
On Jun 7, 2007, at 12:31 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
What do you mean by 'information related to the session usage'?
Ugh - that's what the parenthetical below way trying to talk about.
Stuff like digits in INFO (which we say should be done with KPML
instead).
Stuff like capturing data out of a protocol on the other side of a
gateway an tunneling it to
either an application or to another gateway.
Stuff like data out of the media channel (collected an an IVR perhaps)
that needs to be passed
to an application server that's not on the media path.
More stuff than I think it will be worth trying to build clarity around
for this conversation.
My point was to _agree_ with what's in sip-info-harmful (you see that
Dean also called that out early in the thread)
and to note that we don't have the reasoning that's there stated strongly
enough in an easy to stumble across place
and without that, people are going to continue to find new ways to fill
the tubes with INFO requests.
Two separate issues, both important...
(We need _more_ than just what's in your draft - we also need
Jonathan may remember that I asked about his draft in discussions about the
hitchhiker's guide. The answsr was, of course, that we didn't have a
reasonable reference to the draft, so couldn't tell people who were trying
to learn about SIP "don't go there" (until, of course, they "go there" and
submit draft-newbie-sip-whatever-over-info-00).
So at the very least, we need an RFC number that's not in the draft now!
guidance for people who are wanting to do new
things with INFO that points them to what we consider sane alternatives
instead.)
It would be OK with me if we ALSO had this type of guidance ("don't look
HERE, look over THERE") available ("stated strongly enough in an easy to
stumble across place"), but if coming up with that guidance takes more than
about a week, I don't see a lot of reason to hold up on "don't go there"
while we explore alternatives.
<rant>If we don't progress stuff like this, we can't be surprised when the
experts spend all their time explaining the same stuff over and over again,
onlist. New participants don't want to repeat old bad ideas. They have
plenty of opportunities to come up with NEW bad ideas. This is a SIP
community responsibility, not just Jonathan's and not just the chairs'
responsibility. Jonathan did his part (in 2003), and Dean points to this
draft about once a month. We need to find a way to move past
lather-rinse-repeat about long-time semi-documented consensus.
IMO. Of course.
</rant>
RjS
I'll also take this opportunity to remind people of the reasons I think
moving forward with more INFO usages is a bad idea:
http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-rosenberg-sip-info-harmful-00.txt
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.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
