draft-ietf-sip-record-route-fix-08 Changes

Hi,
version -08 of record-route fix has just been submitted.

Change log:
- Changed its status from BCP to PS,
- Take into account IESG reviews and subsequent comments on the mailing
lists, 
they were summarized in Robert Sparks's document (rrf.txt), 
so it has been integrated in version -08 with minor refactoring from the
authors (me and Ben).

The thoughest part was related to the SIP/SIPS question raised by Cullen
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-sip-record-route-fix/c
omment/98624/),
so here is the text that was added in version -08 to answer this
question:
"Thus, if the transport protocol changed between its
   incoming and outgoing sides, the proxy SHOULD use the double
   Record-Route technique and SHOULD add a transport parameter to each
   of the Record-Route URIs it inserts. With the exception that if TLS
is
   used as the transport protocol on either side of the proxy, the URI
   chosen to place in the Record-Route header field value reflecting the
   interface using TLS will need to leverage the [RFC3263] mechanisms to
   indicate that TLS must be used rather attempting to use the
deprecated
   "transport=tls" URI parameter. See [RFC3261] Section 26.2.2 and
   [I-D.ietf-sip-sips] Section 3.1.4 for more discussion."

Brds,
Thomas & Ben
_______________________________________________
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