Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-20: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-sip/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - 5.1: I guess it's too late to ask, but I'll ask anyway, just in case this hasn't yet been implemented and it's not too late... I can see why you want to support SIP URIs and can't e.g. only support SIPS URIs here. But in supporting SIP URIs couldn't you have taken an opportunistic security approach to using TLS and e.g. maybe treated a SIP URI as if it's a SIPS URI except for the certificate validation step? I do get that that might restrict re-use of unmodified SIPS stacks but maybe that'd be ok in this context. Any chance of considering that or is it too late or a case where there's not enough energy/interest? (EIther form of "no" is a very reasonable answer.) - Just out of curiosity, are folks deploying this anywhere? _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
