Richard Aas wrote: > >>I'm implementing a SIP UAC (UDP unicast only) and have the > >>following questions: > >> > >>PS. I'm using RFC 2543 as the standard (not the drafts). > >> > > > > Uh. Why? Suffice to say that that are are number of > > not insignificant changes in State Of The Art that > > fix a number of broken things in 2543. Plus, bis-05 > > is ooodles easier to parse than any previous incarnations, > > and would probably have immediately answered the > > questions that you had. > > To quote the IETF; "Internet drafts have no formal status > and are subject to change or removal at any time. 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."
I understand the semantics of something being an ID; however, this doesn't mean they shouldn't be tracked. If you stick to pure 2543, I doubt that you will do a Record-Route implementation that is truly workable (this is egregious), you might choose to incorporate a number of things that are now deprecated (PGP; Hide; Via comments; multiple-messages-per-datagram; to name but a few), you will not be able to cope with Request Merging scenarious, and the list goes on, believe me. Such an approach seems ill-advised, and also I am failing to see any good reason. If you instead look at bis-05 (or later), you will be largely largely largely fully 2543 compliant, and also have a reasonable &:) shot at being compliant to RFCxxxx when we move to Draft Stadard. - Jo. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
