IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] SIP-CLF: text versus binary

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor@rogers.com> Fri, 01 May 2009 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor@rogers.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 274A33A6B1E for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 May 2009 12:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.607, BAYES_20=-0.74]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hy3xl4WHW-uF for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 May 2009 12:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp125.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp125.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.53.30]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E77BA3A691D for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 May 2009 12:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 53917 invoked from network); 1 May 2009 19:15:19 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=rogers.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=s+faBvk31rUxZqh9/NGSgoBIE5/0Dz7vMRxmG/vmY6sPfYPnaxz1tQAoi+0cxTwygmQYDa2AgGjRZVwX1/m+Irf83Ikuu61C7JKO+omwAMHr/tR70VXYdY6MPWC1tpzv6cbStD9BYhk2lRdbWE8dODDLqin9FQoDOQ7Tjp6y62g= ;
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.100?) (tom.taylor@72.140.46.24 with plain) by smtp125.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 May 2009 19:15:19 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: kS5JklUVM1nOmhJIqpCZHROo5Jv0n_2nMzyyeLWNvUoeuAn8y9pG9jScXh_eq8mbFA--
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Message-ID: <49FB4A4B.1060007@rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 15:15:23 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor@rogers.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
References: <AF689C4E-9D79-4C82-87D5-7623D7A08007@standardstrack.com>
In-Reply-To: <AF689C4E-9D79-4C82-87D5-7623D7A08007@standardstrack.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dispatch] SIP-CLF: text versus binary
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 19:13:57 -0000

Just for fun, I'll remind you all that we tried to decide the H.248 text vs. 
binary question by the flip of a coin. The coin came up "text" while the H.248 
rapporteur sat there with his jaw touching the floor, but then Pete Cordell came 
up with the idea of text-encoded ASN.1 and that kept the issue alive. It turned 
out the real reason the binary wouldn't die was that some people wanted to carry 
it in ISUP (BICC, actually).

Tom Taylor

Eric Burger wrote:
...
> 
> Why is H.248 a text protocol in the wild, even though the binary format 
> had tons of intellectual effort poured into it?
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email