> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of A > Venkatraman > Sent: 24 October 2001 17:37 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Record-Route change in bis03 > > > The record route functionality was re-written in bis-03. > Significantly, the UAS functionality for building a Route set > was modified > to remove the replacement of the name-addr in the URI with the contact > information. > > Will there by any interoperability issue if a bis-03 > compliant UA has a call > handled through a proxy that is compliant with bis02 or earlier?
Despite what some marketoids believe there is no such thing as bis-X compliant SIP implementation. All the 'bis versions' are iterations of an Internet Draft. Internet-Drafts are working documents and have no standards status. To quote RFC 2026: * Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft * * be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- * * for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance * * with an Internet-Draft. * The only issue is whether the wording of whatever text is in the final version of any bis draft, which goes on to become a new RFC for SIP, is backwards compatible with RFC 2543. Given the vague/broken nature of record-routing in RFC 2543 this is really something of a non-issue. Cheers, Neil. -- Ubiquity Software Corporation, UK http://www.ubiquity.net _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
