Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO considered harmful

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:15:53 -0600

> If that is the solution, I see no reason for this whole 
> thread :) There is no idea to put any restrictions on INFO
> either, because the bad guys will ignore it anyway...

Yes, people will do it. Unless we take up arms and start a massive
intelligence effort, there's nothing we can do about that simple
fact.

The overarching question is: should the IETF lend these
noninteroperable, potentially network-crippling approaches
credibility? Allison? Does the IESG generally condone that
sort of thing?

/a
_______________________________________________
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: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 18:13:49 -0600

> credibility? Allison? Does the IESG generally condone that 

My, that's seriously humorous rhetoric. You continued deluge of non
interoperable network crippling bytes has overwhelmed my mail server far
more quickly than the tens of unsolicited (and often unknown and
indecipherable) MIME objects that get delivered to my mailbox each day, and
I'm sure it does more harm to the network than the thousands of MIME objects
not (specified by HTTP) that I retrieve with HTYP each day . . .

We need to get a little perspective here, folks.

--
Dean

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 21:04:14 -0500

Before I get misunderstood: I don't suggest standardizing applications 
(of INFO or anything else) that shouldn't be. We don't have to 
legitimize dumb designs. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any 
(successfull) attempt to limit Content-Type to a specific, approved set.

Also, generally the IETF has worried about network load. Thus, mandating 
various rules for use of TCP or congestion-control protocols seems 
perfectly in line with experience. Prohibiting things for the benefit of 
CPU load has no precedent that I can think of.