Re: I-D Inaction: draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00.txt
Dean Willis <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mar 28, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > Yeah I've been thinking about what you said the other day about > this, and I think I understand your point, but I still think MUST's > and an update to 3261 would be good, for the following reasons: > > 1) We really should want to change 3261 to say MUST NOT put an ip- > address/hostname in the call-id. Really in 20/20 hindsight I don't > think it should have had one to begin with. > > 2) It's easier for customers to force vendors to do something if > there's a MUST statement, standards-track RFC, vs. an informational > recommendation/should. > > 3) Endpoint UAC vendors should do it *before* getting deployed and > being told by customers to change after-wards. Specifically I'm > thinking about vendors who don't attend IETF and aren't that up-to- > speed on all the nuances and such. An update to 3261 with normative > mandatory language is clearer, I think. > I find myself in agreement with all three arguments here. -- 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