Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO

From: Jeroen van Bemmel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:28:35 +0200

Since INFO is mid-dialog, the endpoints can signal what they support. It does not need to be known a priori

Regards,
Jeroen

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]>
Aan: "Peili Xu" <[email-masked]>
CC: "sip" <[email-masked]>
Verzonden: 31-8-07 00:03
Onderwerp: Re: [Sip] INFO

Saying, "OK for interworking" does not really say anything.  If I come up
with a really broken method for interworking, saying that it is for
interworking does not make it correct.

The problem is, how do the endpoints know they will be able to communicate?
For the ISUP/Q.sig/DPNSS/mumble case, the endpoints know they will be able
to interoperate because they know a'priori: they are configured to work.
However, this means that the devices must be in the same administrative
domain and configured properly.

Said in a different manner, INFO works fine for non-inter-network use.  It
would be hard for the IETF to say, "Here is a non-IETF use.  We will not use
it.  You cannot use it with anyone else.  You cannot use it between
manufacturers, unless you get them to agree to this use."  That is a bit
more of what we call the toxic waste warning that accompanies 3GPP
specifications...

On 8/27/07 8:35 AM, "Peili Xu" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Eric,
> 
> Several cases I encounter to use INFO is for interworking with PSTN signaling,
> or simulate PSTN services at SIP entities such as SIP UA or SIP GW,
> which require mid-dialog information change.
> 

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:33:19 -0700

*How* do they signal what they support?  In an INFO?  <jk> 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeroen van Bemmel [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 11:29 AM
To: Eric Burger; Peili Xu
Cc: sip
Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO

Since INFO is mid-dialog, the endpoints can signal what they support. It
does not need to be known a priori

Regards,
Jeroen

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]>
Aan: "Peili Xu" <[email-masked]>
CC: "sip" <[email-masked]>
Verzonden: 31-8-07 00:03
Onderwerp: Re: [Sip] INFO

Saying, "OK for interworking" does not really say anything.  If I come
up with a really broken method for interworking, saying that it is for
interworking does not make it correct.

The problem is, how do the endpoints know they will be able to
communicate?
For the ISUP/Q.sig/DPNSS/mumble case, the endpoints know they will be
able to interoperate because they know a'priori: they are configured to
work.
However, this means that the devices must be in the same administrative
domain and configured properly.

Said in a different manner, INFO works fine for non-inter-network use.
It would be hard for the IETF to say, "Here is a non-IETF use.  We will
not use it.  You cannot use it with anyone else.  You cannot use it
between manufacturers, unless you get them to agree to this use."  That
is a bit more of what we call the toxic waste warning that accompanies
3GPP specifications...

On 8/27/07 8:35 AM, "Peili Xu" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Eric,
> 
> Several cases I encounter to use INFO is for interworking with PSTN 
> signaling, or simulate PSTN services at SIP entities such as SIP UA or

> SIP GW, which require mid-dialog information change.
> 

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.

---

From: "Hadriel Kaplan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:01:34 -0400

I think he's saying it's something that could be resolved by
standardization. (maybe)

At least the way I read your draft, the draft makes arguments against INFO
of two different types, as if they were of similar weight and impact - but
that's not really the case.  There is one set of problems with INFO that
exist because of architectural issues, which are probably not fixable, and
are generally damning.  There is a separate set which are problems merely
because no standard exists for how to address them, but they could be
resolved.  This latter type is not really a "Why INFO is bad in general", as
much as a "what the current problems are with INFO that we should fix if we
want to keep using INFO".

-hadriel

> From: Eric Burger [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 11:33 AM
> To: Jeroen van Bemmel; Peili Xu
> Cc: sip
> Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO
> 
> 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.
> 
>