> -----Original Message----- > From: A Venkatraman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 24 October 2001 22:27 > To: Neil Deason; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Record-Route change in bis03 > > > My reading of the text tells me that a UAS implementing the text for > Record-Route in bis-03/04 will not be able to interoperate > with a proxy > implementing the text in bis-02. Is this correct? > > Realistically, since bis02 was out for a long time, many > folks updated their > devices to the text in bis02. > Hence, my question on whether a UA, that interoperates with > other devices > that may be still implementing bis-02 text, can > transparently change its > implementation to bis-03?
I think this should be possible and I would encourage implementors to do it if they can. The operation of Record- Route in bis-03/04 (05 soon) is going to be much closer to the finished article than 02. Of course as none of these are Internet Standards so issues arising will need to be tackled by the respective implementors not the IETF. But many vendors try to track the latest bis drafts. Cheers, Neil. -- Ubiquity Software Corporation, UK http://www.ubiquity.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Neil Deason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 11:52 AM > To: A Venkatraman; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Record-Route change in bis03 > > > -----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
