ISTM that pieces of the specs, like tel, aren't implemented for a couple
of reasons:
- they are too hard to implement
- there isn't enough bang for the buck
- its just not understood
Tel clearly isn't *hard* to implement. That rules out the first excuse,
and for the second implies that there isn't perceived to be much bang at
all, since the bucks are small. So I expect that either it just isn't
understood, or else there is perceived to be no benefit at all.
If we can demonstrate that there is value here then it seems like it
should be possible to get implementors to support it. But maybe I'm
being naive.
Paul
Dean Willis wrote:
>
> On Apr 13, 2008, at 1:17 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>>
>> So where do we go from here?
>> Option 1) Ignore it. This may only be a minor population of the sip
>> community; or they may fix it themselves someday; or it may not be a
>> real problem if they keep doing what they're doing.
>> Option 2) Figure out how to make tel more successful.
>> Option 3) Figure out how to make sip with user=phone a true alias.
>> Option 4) ??
>>
>
> I'm inclined to 2 or 3. As the discussion has noted, user=phone is at
> best a trifle underdocumented. Either 2 or 3 requires additional spec
> work; but at lest the problem is tractable this way.
>
> --
> Dean
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://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
