Hi,
I have to side with Juha on this. A mandatory feature should be released to the public. Moreover TLS IS a compelling need, for everybody who cares, but with SER, we just cannot use it. Who would not use TLS, was TLS available? Not all organizations have the money or the will to spend money on a commercial license, eventhough it would make them a lot of good.
And don't get me wrong, I understand why iptel choose this line of "marketing" ... probably TLS is the most desired feature that free SER lacks, so a lot of revenue comes from this side.
In any case, I would like to call all those developers out there with some spare time who'd like to help implement TLS for free SER, myself volunteering as of now (hope this email does not get censored :D ). Drop me a line if you are interested.
Regards,
-Cesc---
At 10:27 PM 2/17/2005, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Marian Dumitru writes:
Also you can go for TLS, which is as concept basically the same thing IPSEC tunnels. The major difference is that TLS is not free as IPSEC is.
TLS not being part of free ser is indeed a problem. i think it is the only feature mandated by rfc3261 that is not included in free ser.
i fully understand that iptel needs to make money somehow in order to keep its developers on the payroll, but i feel that a mandatory feature should not be hold back. there still is plenty of other value add that iptel can produce even if tls would be in public domain.
To be candid, the suggestion to release some of money-generating features freely and begin working on some other money-generating feature is easier said than executed.
so what can be done about it? the easiest thing would, of course, be that iptel changes its policy and makes their tls implementation as part of free ser.
I do not see that as feasible, at least not at short-term. The feature is commercially available to those with a compelling need for it.
-jiri
I would like to have TLS freely available too. I have been trying to push in that direction for a while, so far without success.
Jan.
On 18-02 11:30, Cesc Santasusana wrote:
Hi,
I have to side with Juha on this. A mandatory feature should be released to the public. Moreover TLS IS a compelling need, for everybody who cares, but with SER, we just cannot use it. Who would not use TLS, was TLS available? Not all organizations have the money or the will to spend money on a commercial license, eventhough it would make them a lot of good.
And don't get me wrong, I understand why iptel choose this line of "marketing" ... probably TLS is the most desired feature that free SER lacks, so a lot of revenue comes from this side.
In any case, I would like to call all those developers out there with some spare time who'd like to help implement TLS for free SER, myself volunteering as of now (hope this email does not get censored :D ). Drop me a line if you are interested.
Regards,
-Cesc---
At 10:27 PM 2/17/2005, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Marian Dumitru writes:
Also you can go for TLS, which is as concept basically the same thing IPSEC tunnels. The major difference is that TLS is not free as IPSEC is.
TLS not being part of free ser is indeed a problem. i think it is the only feature mandated by rfc3261 that is not included in free ser.
i fully understand that iptel needs to make money somehow in order to keep its developers on the payroll, but i feel that a mandatory feature should not be hold back. there still is plenty of other value add that iptel can produce even if tls would be in public domain.
To be candid, the suggestion to release some of money-generating features freely and begin working on some other money-generating feature is easier said than executed.
so what can be done about it? the easiest thing would, of course, be that iptel changes its policy and makes their tls implementation as part of free ser.
I do not see that as feasible, at least not at short-term. The feature is commercially available to those with a compelling need for it.
-jiri
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
TLS in the Free version of Ser would be nice :D
-Atle
* Jan Janak jan@iptel.org [050218 20:04]:
I would like to have TLS freely available too. I have been trying to push in that direction for a while, so far without success.
Jan.
On 18-02 11:30, Cesc Santasusana wrote:
Hi,
I have to side with Juha on this. A mandatory feature should be released to the public. Moreover TLS IS a compelling need, for everybody who cares, but with SER, we just cannot use it. Who would not use TLS, was TLS available? Not all organizations have the money or the will to spend money on a commercial license, eventhough it would make them a lot of good.
And don't get me wrong, I understand why iptel choose this line of "marketing" ... probably TLS is the most desired feature that free SER lacks, so a lot of revenue comes from this side.
In any case, I would like to call all those developers out there with some spare time who'd like to help implement TLS for free SER, myself volunteering as of now (hope this email does not get censored :D ). Drop me a line if you are interested.
Regards,
-Cesc---
At 10:27 PM 2/17/2005, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Marian Dumitru writes:
Also you can go for TLS, which is as concept basically the same thing IPSEC tunnels. The major difference is that TLS is not free as IPSEC is.
TLS not being part of free ser is indeed a problem. i think it is the only feature mandated by rfc3261 that is not included in free ser.
i fully understand that iptel needs to make money somehow in order to keep its developers on the payroll, but i feel that a mandatory feature should not be hold back. there still is plenty of other value add that iptel can produce even if tls would be in public domain.
To be candid, the suggestion to release some of money-generating features freely and begin working on some other money-generating feature is easier said than executed.
so what can be done about it? the easiest thing would, of course, be that iptel changes its policy and makes their tls implementation as part of free ser.
I do not see that as feasible, at least not at short-term. The feature is commercially available to those with a compelling need for it.
-jiri
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Jan Janak writes:
I would like to have TLS freely available too. I have been trying to push in that direction for a while, so far without success.
jan, thanks for your support on this.
i would like to add that it would be interesting to know which parts of the free code iptel has its own versions, so that other developers know when they are more or less "on their own".
like parser, for example, does iptel use its own version of parser because i didn't find in the free parser any ifdefs referring to sips uris or tls.
-- juha
Juha Heinanen writes:
like parser, for example, does iptel use its own version of parser because i didn't find in the free parser any ifdefs referring to sips uris or tls.
andrei already replied to this. the parser DOES support sips uris, which is a good thing. many modules, however, just assume that uri scheme is sip and all those would need to be fixed to check the security or, preferably, uri_scheme field. i guess many module writers were not aware of this issue.
i'll check the modules that i have written for sip: dependencies and hope others do the same.
-- juha
-
Atle Samuelsen -
Cesc Santasusana -
Jan Janak -
Juha Heinanen