Adrian Georgescu wrote:
On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
Most who have worked on sip for awhile would probably agree that if we
could start over with a clean slate and all that we now know we could
create something simpler and better. But there is too much investment
in implementations of what we have, making a clean slate infeasible.
We are stuck with what we can do in an evolutionary way.
I wish we do not have to be stuck in the infinite complexity created by
our past mistakes. Unless you are talking about some terminal desease or
the like you can always fix a bad decision your took in the past with a
good decision you take now.
Yes and no. You can always create a new way to do something that is
better than the old way, rendering the old way obsolete. But as long as
there is the possibility that you might have to interact with somebody
that only implemented the old way, you have to be prepared for that
eventuality. Hence the complexity just goes up.
A bunch of people spent several years defining SDPng - a replacement for
SDP that intended to remedy all of its limitations. Eventually the whole
effort was dropped, largely (IMO) because the pain of migrating to it
exceeded the benefit of doing so.
Thanks,
Paul
Or to quote from a book I read "Any mistakes you commit through
audacity are easily corrected with more audacity". Don't know who wrote
this.
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip
Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip
Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP
