Well, looking at draft-ietf-mediactrl-sip-control-framework-01.txt for the first time, I would say one reason is that the TOTE mechanism has a better chance of success in more environments. At least across SBCs, if that matters to you. (it matters to me, obviously, but not everyone)
[Chris Boulton] Which is exactly why the Control Framework needs valuable input from RAI experts for the next revision (which is already planned). This is certainly an area that 'we'(mediactrl) have flagged to look at for the next version of the Framework. I certainly wouldn't want to see yet another 'parallel fork' (that one is for Dean) in IETF technology - especially as the Control Framework is the rarest of beasts in the IETF in that it ACTUALLY has several 'running code' implementations. Also, TOTE is a lot lighter weight, although I'm sure after a few rounds of drafts with lots of people's inputs it will probably grow to be not far off. :) [Chris Boulton] hehehe - that made me smile. Next you will be telling me that SIP is a light weight protocol :-). -hadriel > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Chris Boulton > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 5:52 AM > To: Dean Willis; Ted Hardie > Cc: IETF SIP List > Subject: Re: [Sip] New I-D - TOTE - "INFO" on the media path > > On Feb 20, 2008, at 12:28 AM, Ted Hardie wrote: > > > > . If the idea is that the specification of > > "pic" or "name" is at the level of the specification of an event > > package, > > then we are dealing with something else entirely and the draft can > > be re-written to express that. But I would expect, in that case, > > for each > > of the registered purposes to be very carefully specified as to what > > the > > acting application would do with them. And I suspect pretty much > > everything like "name" would have to go. > > Ok, I think I agree with you here. Each "purpose" would need to be > very clearly specified, at roughly the same level of detail as is > required for an event package or would be required for an INFO package > if we were to go that way. And yes, the draft is a bit short on this > right now. > > [Chris Boulton] BUT then we are just recreating the Control Framework > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mediactrl-sip-control-fr > amework-01.txt) from the MediaCtrl work group - just called a different > name. I'm not sure why we can't just use that. > > Chris. > > > -- > Dean > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list http://www.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 http://www.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 http://www.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
