27 May
2011
27 May
'11
11:40 a.m.
Hi,
hope it has not lost in translation an sounded tough, really no such
intention! I know Inaki is a "deep lover" of IETF :-), ready for heavy
fights and actually we are allies here, fighting against IETF way of
developing specs, but it happens to be from different directions this time.
I expressed that I am not crying after msrp, trying to show that sip has
the _potential_ to offer same functionality, avoiding a spaghetti of
protocols. Thus I consider MSRP a failure of IETF. Inaki fights IETF
not to add yet another protocol (slightly different version of msrp with
no big benefits compared with existing one).
Looking at HTTP, when they needed file upload, they added put/delete --
they stayed in the same protocol whenever possible. In this ways the
infrastructure nodes remain the same, only higher-level applications
have to be updated. When they needed asynchronous stuff (e.g., ajax)
they found the solution there, not a new spec. In IETF and SIP WGs is
different, like a race for new protocols, not re-use of existing ones.
Web does now more real-time communication methods better than SIP,
because IETF hasn't decided the infrastructure protocol for SIP-related
networks. Defining new request method types or headers is not a change
of the protocol. This is one of the powerful tools of SIP, IETF seemed
to forget that.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 5/27/11 8:57 AM, Carsten Bock wrote:
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
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda