Matthew Gardiner wrote: > > "If, on the other hand, you decide to implement RFC3262, then you must > implement it all. Including the bit about not necessarily getting an > SDP in the 200 if you received one reliably earlier." > > The implication here being, if you implement a newer SIP specification > (3262) you are no longer fully compliant with an earlier spec (3261).
No. That is not the implication at all. My comment was to encourage full implementations of a feature, not partial ones. Implementing RFC3262 in no way affects compliance with RFC3261. The wording in RFC3261 is careful to leave that door open for RFC3262. > That's my understanding of a loss of backward compatibility. > What's worth noting is that 3261 defines "core SIP functionality". > Interesting that an "extension functionality spec" 3262, does not > just propose additional functionality, it suggests that behaviour > advised/suggested/whatever in the core draft may be modified. Again, I disagree. There is no loss of backward compatibility. An RFC3261 UA can call an RFC3262 UA (and vice versa) without any problems. The new functionality is only used when both ends support it. Perhaps you could explain the compatibility problem that you see. Regards, Michael Procter _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
