> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Hornsby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 6:51 AM
> To: Richard Aas
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] UAC behavior
>
>
> 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.
>
Perhaps the standard 2543 be 'obsoleted' or 'deprecated' so that new
implementers will not have the confusion to choose between the standard and
the evolving draft AND for the still open issues in the bis they anyway have
this forum.
-satya
> - Jo.
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
