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 <mico...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> 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-invite
>
> 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@lists.sip-router.org
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
--
Carsten Bock
http://www.ng-voice.com
mailto:cars...@ng-voice.com
Schomburgstr. 80
22767 Hamburg
Germany
Mobile +49 179 2021244
Office +49 40 34927219
Fax +49 40 34927220
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
