9 Jan
2009
9 Jan
'09
12:39 p.m.
On 01/09/2009 12:26 PM, Victor Pascual Ávila wrote:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Daniel-Constantin
Mierla
<miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Completely true. It is scary that some technologies even obsolete look
like never to be removed ... :-)
And from experience, for SIP, it has to get a new version number or a
new name. It will be more attractive to be SIP3.0 compliant than SIP2.0
+ RFCxyzw.
SIP 2.0 is so vagues right now with lot of extensions/amendments and
what is still must/should/may.
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com
Hello,
On 01/08/2009 09:32 PM, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
I agree with what Daniel says. However, if we keep stuck to the
solutions we have now we'll never obsolete them.
Aymeric Moizard wrote:
The question could be the other way around: does anyone remember another
technology that needed so many patches and workarounds :-)? Just
thinking about the number of RFCs and drafts coming to
complete/recommend/give usage guidelines ...
ICE came too late, the are millions of end user devices sold out there,
without it. And as "workarounds" are in place, nobody will invest now
(crisis :-) ?!?!) to replace them -- only the time will obsolete them.
So we still have to stick to the solutions we have now.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
> I respectfully disagree -- the field has clearly shown that working
> NAT traversal today is more valuable than message integrity and ICE
> architecture both together. (Whcih happens to be my personal
> preference too: getting over NATs today is more important to me than
> any sort of securing free phone calls.) Generally I tend to prefer
> priorities as articulated by live deployments.
>
>
I think we both agree on where we want to go.
The difference is probably that current way SIP is used might be enough
for you, but as a 10 years SIP endpoint stack builder, I'm just bored
about using SIP over non transparent network. Not your fault...
> I'm sorry to be so differently opinionated on this, particularly
> because I like ICE esthetically as the "e2e" solution. However,
> somehow in the Internet the things that are deployable today always
> matter. (even if considered evil, such as NATs)
>
>
Don't be sorry.
My intention for this thread was just to ask ser/kamailio/whatever to
make sure the future will not be the same as the 10 past years. My
intention was not to say "you are all wrong".
No problem at all -- it is indeed an uneasy question.
The end-to-end-ness of ice seems appealing like say TCP does. TCP is robust
in that whatever happens in the network, smart software (quite complex
in fact)
in the end-devices can deal with it. So I keep asking myself why ICE is
getting so little traction if the same thing works for TCP. One of the
reasons
could be that it is a sort of backwards-compatibility problem, since in
a way
it is a layer 3/4 technology and changing IP/transport layer is just
painful. One
could also argue that it can't be fully e2e since it relies on network
via TURN,
even though as the last resort.
It is not a clear bet to me -- in fact I fell a bit ashamed I may be
giving up
on ICE too early. Still I do. Does anyone have a memory of a technology that
was "clean", came late and surpassed "internet workarounds"?