I don't think those (and there are quite a few of them) doing DTMF with INFO will abandon it at this late date...
> -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Burger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 5. syyskuuta 2007 16:09 > To: Bram Verburg > Cc: sip > Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO > > SIP-T suffers *all* of the issues with INFO. > > Read section 3.3 for the 'right' way of doing SIP-T. > > That said, let's be real: I don't think anyone will abandon > SIP-T at this late date. Although this really is a counter > example, I would liken this to the story in: > http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.htm > > > > > On 9/5/07 4:56 AM, "Bram Verburg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> That is the point of the draft. All of the uses of INFO > today have > >> alternatives that do not have the same problems. > >> > >> In fact, I am really thinking the draft should point out > the use of > >> INFO for SIP-T is also incorrect. SIP-T should use a control > >> channel, not the "SIP" > >> channel, for transporting proprietary signaling. The only thing > >> SIP-T does is re-create TCP over SIP. Not a very useful > use of SIP. > > > > I don't think that's a fair assessment of SIP-T, since you > seem to be > > ignoring the fact that SIP-T also (primarily) uses other > methods than > > INFO. > > > > The encapsulation of 'proprietary' signaling is done to convey > > information that cannot currently be conveyed in pure SIP. > But other > > than that, within the VoIP domain the regular SIP dialog > model is used > > to establish and tear down sessions. SIP headers take > precedence over > > the contents of the ISUP/Q.931 message, so the 'tunneled' > message is > > only used to fill in some blanks at the receiving end. For the most > > part proxies and even user agents can safely ignore the > message body > > and still participate in the SIP dialog. > > > > Some ISUP/Q.931 messages arrive at a stage in the session where SIP > > doesn't define any interaction between UAs, so currently > INFO is used > > as a tunnel. If you believe it should be replaced by something less > > ambiguous, that won't be abused outside the scope of SIP-T the same > > way INFO is today, I guess that's fair enough. But saying > that SIP-T > > should use TCP tunnels instead seems a bit harsh. > > > > Bram > > > > > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, > may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its > subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be > confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally > privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the > individual or entity named in this message. If you are not > the intended recipient, and have received this message in > error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
