Subject: [Sip] SIP v3.0?

From: "Beith, Gordon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:00:18 -0400

Hello.

I was interested to find out whether a draft exists or not for SIP
version 3.0.

I have seen a lot of discussion on the topic, but have been unable to
find a draft.

Or am I too premature on this topic?

Regards,

Gordon Beith 

_______________________________________________
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: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:42:54 -0500

On Mar 16, 2007, at 2:00 PM, Beith, Gordon wrote:
> I have seen a lot of discussion on the topic, but have been unable  
> to find a draft.
>

Premature might be one way to put it. I'd say prescient, but that  
might scare people. We haven't officially recognized a SIP 3. process  
yet, and may not ever do so.

Or as my favorite palm-reader says, "The future is clouded."

--
Dean

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:35:52 -0500

From: "Beith, Gordon" <[email-masked]>

SIP 3.0 is like fully participatory democracy, the ultimate form of
communism, and the earthly Kingdom of God -- a thorough reform of what
presently exists that will remove all of its flaws.

Similar to those other three projects, there is no WG timeline yet for
SIP 3.0 development.

Dale

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:51:15 -0400

No timeline, no plans, and no way we are ever going to do this. Sorry 
folks, this ship left the dock about five years ago. SIP is widely 
deployed and widely implemented. Its too late to 'start over and fix all 
the problems'. The costs to the industry would be astromonical to scrap 
everything and start over, and ultimately for no improvement beyond 
satisfaction of the technologists on a more elegant protocol. That is 
hardly a business proposition.

Indeed, such is the nature of any wildly successful protocol that gets 
broadly used on the Internet. I'm sure the HTTP, HTML, SMTP, and so on, 
folks wish they could do it all over too. Too bad.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:28:31 -0500

Personally, I disagree. SIP needs a spring cleaning. It's getting  
dusty in the back rooms, and I'm pretty sure I saw a mouse running  
through one of the drafty attics earlier today.

The good news is that one can do spring cleaning without tearing the  
house down. We're not talking about scrapping everything and starting  
over (or if we were, we wouldn't be talking SIP). We're talking more  
of a controlled multiyear revision process that happens more-or-less  
in-place, like the migration from HTTP 1.0 to HTTP 1.1.

In the process, I propose that there are some parts of the house that  
we may not want to do spring-cleaning on. We'd perhaps be better  
served by masking them  off with yellow police-tape and a sign that  
says "Danger! Enter at your own risk".

--
Dean

On Mar 18, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

> No timeline, no plans, and no way we are ever going to do this.  
> Sorry folks, this ship left the dock about five years ago. SIP is  
> widely deployed and widely implemented. Its too late to 'start over  
> and fix all the problems'. The costs to the industry would be  
> astromonical to scrap everything and start over, and ultimately for  
> no improvement beyond satisfaction of the technologists on a more  
> elegant protocol. That is hardly a business proposition.
>
> Indeed, such is the nature of any wildly successful protocol that  
> gets broadly used on the Internet. I'm sure the HTTP, HTML, SMTP,  
> and so on, folks wish they could do it all over too. Too bad.
>
> -Jonathan R.
>