Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Dean Willis <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Apr 1, 2009, at 3:14 PM, Dan Wing wrote: > > There continue to be transit IP providers even though the Internet > has been > around for decades, and there continue to be transit PSTN providers > even > though the PSTN has been around for generations. Remember, I'm practicing at challenging "the opposition" to help you clean up your argument, so don't take this the wrong way . . . Transit IP providers don't require changing the core protocols so they can preserve their business models. I'm hesitant to potentially cripple a security mechanism in order to preserve the business model of transit PSTN providers. Seriously: You want the protocol to change, you have to have a reason that makes sense in the context of the Internet. Crazy stuff that people are doing in private networks to justify their financial exchange doesn't qualify as a reason to change accepted Internet architecture. -- Dean _______________________________________________ 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