Re: Sip-199-02: majors and nits from Robert

I'm going to abstain from this particular issue from now on.
I don't see any good use for this option, but its not worth arguing more 
about.

	Thanks,
	Paul

Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
>>> ISTM that the kinds of failures that will result from inappropriate 
>>> use of Require:199 are self limiting. They will break things early in 
>>> interop testing, and be fixed.
>> You are refreshingly optimistic. :)  Have you read 3GPP specs recently?
> In theory their behavior should be self-limiting too; but it works in
> their closed single-vendor environments on day-1, then 
>> breaks on day-2 when the environment grows or another vendor is added.
> And since the new vendor being added is the one with motivation to make
> things work, the new vendor is the one that will add 199 
>> support.  Then one day the customer will want to connect their network
> to others, and boom.
>> If we can't think of any legitimate use for an option-tag in Require,
> why should we allow it?
> 
> Because there may be a legitimate use for it tomorrow, or next week, or
> next year.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
_______________________________________________
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