Re: Sip-199-02: majors and nits from Robert (was: RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-199-02)
Hadriel Kaplan <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC31374154553@mail> |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 7:55 AM > > I don't like must-nots if it doesn't break the protocol. But, I agree we > should strongly recommend against it. Developers and product managers read SHOULD NOT as basically optional, and customers have a hard time forcing vendors to follow SHOULDs compared with MUSTs. We've seen this time and time again. The _protocol_ may not "break", but user expectations and experience "breaks", and at the end of the day that hurts all of us. Well, it doesn't hurt me right now - it's created a market opportunity for SBCs to go and fix it; but having middleboxes fix bad implementations is not good in the long term for SIP. IMO interoperability isn't just about _protocol_ behavior, it's the resultant user experience too. Legitimate call attempts must succeed. The spice must flow. ;) -hadriel _______________________________________________ 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