Adam Roach wrote:
Paul Kyzivat wrote:
I agree with you on this. And yet people keep using all these
different things for DTMF, with KPML apparently last in the running.
DTMF provides a powerful cautionary tale, but it wasn't the point I was
trying to make. If we encourage two ways to do things (INFO and NOTIFY)
for future event packages, this problem will spread beyond DTMF, into a
variety of new specifications.
So, to make sure I understand what you're agreeing with me on: are you
specifically agreeing that the arguments I'm making point to needing
separate namespaces for event packages and INFO packages?
I'm agreeing with you that having multiple ways of doing things has
negative consequences. I'm not necessarily agreeing that those
consequences mean we should not do this, because we currently have
multiple *unstandardized* ways of doing things and if we can turn that
into standardized ways it might make things better.
Paul
_______________________________________________
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
