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