Re: Sip-199-02: majors and nits from Robert (was: RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-199-02)

Hi, 

>>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.

It doesn't matter what extension you require - if the other end doesn't
support it you will "break interoperability".

The point is that some extensions may really be needed in order to
things to work, so it makes more sense to require those. 

199 for sure is NOT an extensions which it makes sense to require.

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