Re: draft-ietf-sip-record-route-fix-08 Changes
"Olle E. Johansson" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
13 aug 2009 kl. 23.12 skrev Dean Willis: > > > Hmm. Could it be that since SIPS (draft-ietf-siip-sips) requires e2e > TLS even more strongly than did 3261 for original sips URIs. So if a > URI used in a record-route resolves both TLS and non-TLS, there's a > possibility that the return stroke might not use TLS, thereby > breaking the e2e TLS requirement. But your proposed wording change > seems to have the same effect. > I did not read the draft as SIPS requiring e2e TLS. We still use proxys and have clear communication within the proxy. E2E to me is UAC -> UAS with encryption ALL the way and no middleman. Did I misunderstand? /O _______________________________________________ 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