Subject: RE: [P2Prg] SIP

From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar \(UMKC-Student\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:38:30 -0600

> In my original posting, I don't think I understood the scope for 
> which SIP was being proposed.  
 
let me clarify... I just suggested that SIP can be used for enabling 
a session (but, as a more generic protocol.) Also, many other functions 
can be realised by its use of URI name space. But, Bill thought that 
SIP was proposed as a P2P programming platform ( providing overlay 
construction, look up, etc )- which no one suggested.
 
> I agree with Bill that SIP shouldn't be overloaded to do things it was
> not designed to do.  As a litmus test, I'd say that if you need to add
> extensions to it to do something you want, then you shouldn't be using 
> it. 
 
Although, we are in agreement that SIP should be used as a *general* 
application level signaling protocol, i also think that extensions will be necessary atleast to a minimum level. SIP folks has clearly defined the 
process for introduing changes to SIP. It is documented in RFC 3427- which 
should be the criteria for the litmus test.

_______________________________________________
P2prg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg