Re: Sip-199-02: majors and nits from Robert (was: RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-199-02)
Dean Willis <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Nov 24, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 4:51 PM >> >> So, soon people will have to start deploying SBCs, in order to fix >> the >> mistakes made by their existing SBCs..... ;) > > Well people do upgrade. I think they usually find it easier to > upgrade their SBCs than upgrade their customers' PBX's or peer's > equipment, or even their own core servers. > >> But, I think the correct way to prevent those is to make sure our >> specs >> are clear enough, and easy to understand - not to start making >> restrictions which may shoot back later. > > The thing is with the 199-type of mechanism I actually don't think > we should ever allow such a thing to be Required, ever. > > What you are basically asking for is to create a new 1xx response > code some device may require in order to operate correctly, and that > I think is a bad idea. Okay, that's an interesting argument. In essence, you are saying that Requiring 199 support might break interoperability, therefore it should be forbidden. Yet we have test scenarios where requiring 199 might be reasonable in order to differentiate the set of results expected in a test scenario. Such a scenario doesn't break anything. This is hard to reconcile. -- Dean _______________________________________________ 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