Hi,
can't we just accept, that there are two approaches here? I personally
agree with Daniel regarding the fact, that probably using SIP for this
seems the better approach... but that doesn't mean, that there
could/should not be other ways to solve this as well.
This mail thread reminds me a little of the usual typical Windows vs.
Linux discussions....
This discussion seems to me highly emotional.
Just my $0.02,
Carsten
2011/5/27 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 5/27/11 1:50 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
[...]Below I reply yo your suggestion of non using record-routing.
[...]
I like discussions as they are the best way to learn from other people :)
Inaki, you come back mixing badly everything. I expected (and even mentioned
that in previous email) you will hit the record routing thing to argue a
irrelevantly, it is what you did - that was an example of a mechanism (e.g.,
compared with *-Path), but you found something you could reply to and show
it related to voice calls. The proxy is not allowed to interfere with
negotiation of the session paramters, thank you for reminding that, and we
have calls going through NAT because of following it.
I wonder if you really read to understand or just spot 'single concepts' to
make them out of the context in order to reply something. That is endless
and topic breaker.
You admit MSRP is very much SIP (**what I said, the whole point and
therefore I am done here** -- MSRP is _useless_, no value added), but, for
example, with TLS enforcement - thank you, we need another new protocol for
that because sounds cool -- big fail, imo (note that TLS is not part of SIP
structure, it is a transport layer).
You think too much of sip at it was specified for voice calls ("an use
case"), you cannot escape that thus you cannot see how flexible it is and
what one can do with it. Perhaps same did those coming up with a new very
large set of new protocols that try to exceed PSTN list of
terms/abbreviations. RFC3261 is mainly exemplified with how to use SIP for
voice calls, but not restricted to - forget the examples in the rfc, look at
protocol architecture. But, indeed, on the other hand, it is also more cool
to say 'I am author of a protocol" than of a "specifications for an use
case".
I saw a presentation of msrp years ago, I understood it does not worth a
penny, but I didn't want to debate that since I saved time not looking
deeper at it. Decision to obsolete it confirms that -- this does not mean
that the new one is better, it means the old one is rather useless.
To end the thread, just for your reference, here is a google result of how
windows messenger did session IM, 6 years ago:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/95300-35-messenger-sends-receiving-invi…
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla --
http://www.asipto.com
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda --
http://twitter.com/miconda
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
mailto:carsten@ng-voice.com
Schomburgstr. 80
22767 Hamburg
Germany
Mobile +49 179 2021244
Office +49 40 34927219
Fax +49 40 34927220