Re: Is SDP in an unreliable response "the answer" ???

> > I agree.  I think that the complication is less about the RFC
> ambiguity and more about vendors attempting to find ways to interop
> when some devices don't support (or disabled support of) the following:
> 1) interactions with forking proxies, 2) rfc3262, or 3) rfc3311.
> 
> You may be right about this.
> 
> > Devices which don't support the above 3 items usually need work-a-
> rounds which are not compliant to SIP's offer/answer rules.  Thus
> fixing potential RFC ambiguity does little to fix the real problem
> beyond highlighting that most/all of the work-a-rounds are non
> compliant or not desirable.
> 
> I'm not sure what point you are making here.

I think that the real problem is that some devices don't support (or disable support of) the following: 1) interactions with forking proxies, 2) rfc3262, or 3) rfc3311.  I was mainly just attempting to encourage vendors to support these 3 items so that all the non-complaint or not-desirable work-arounds can be deprecated more quickly.  However I doubt that the need for such work-arounds will go away any time soon.

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments of core SIP