Re: INFO Framework - one pakage per INFO

Let us try again.

INFO is a method that *transports* Application-Level "messages".

INFO is NOT a method of Application-Level messaging.

What is the difference?  In TCP, if I send a message, "SIP/2.blah  
blech" to port 5060, TCP will acknowledge delivery of that packet.   
That is like a "200 OK" in SIP.  The process monitoring port 5060, on  
the other hand, will hopefully come back with some sort of "4xx you  
suck" message, encapsulated over TCP, which TCP will acknowledge  
delivery of.

It is bad enough that we are proving Oran's Law: any well-deployed  
protocol becomes a transport protocol. Let us not make it worse and  
make SIP look like Bluetooth with its dozens of profiles for whether  
you are a data device, a speaker, a microphone, a headset (yes, which  
is different than a speaker and a microphone), and so on.

Let INFO be INFO: something that *transports* messages through a SIP  
Proxy network.  Note I say "through a SIP Proxy network."  If you do  
not want to traverse Proxies, use TCP :-)


On Nov 29, 2008, at 2:03 AM, Anders Kristensen wrote:

>
>
> Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Anders Kristensen [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 9:44 PM
>>>
>>> In any event (no pun intended) I don't think the draft adequately  
>>> deals
>>> with the implications of this model. If errors occurring at higher
>>> layers aren't reported as failure of the INFO request itself, it  
>>> pretty
>>> much follows that the 200 response to the INFO must include a  
>>> payload
>>> that carries info (sorry, pun not intended here either) on the  
>>> error.
>> No I think the logic that Eric's arguing for is "you asked for  
>> delivery of this package, and I'm responding with 200 ok because it  
>> was delivered".  In other words treat INFO as a delivery vehicle,  
>> like MESSAGE, and as long as the package was delivered you send a  
>> 200 ok, with no correlation to if/when the package was opened and  
>> read successfully or not by a higher-layer info-package "consumer".
>>> The alternatives would be:
>>> 1) Don't report app-level errors. Perhaps OK for simple packages.
>>> 2) Report outcome in separate INFO requests going in the opposite
>>> direction. Seems wasteful and requires additional app-level  
>>> correlation.
>> Yeah, I think Eric's argument is for (2).  If they need it, they  
>> pay for it.
>
> Well, in the case of (2) I'd say they'd be overpaying. In my view  
> it's a non-starter. People will want to be able to send app-level  
> responses and they won't want to go through a lot of extra trouble  
> to do it. And why should they? I'm thinking we should allow app- 
> level errors to be signalled with INFO error codes and/or allow INFO  
> responses to carry responses along the lines of what CSTA does.
>
> I'll be applying the flame retardant now...
>
> Anders

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip