2008/9/29, Scott Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 23:22 +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > > > > > Thanks a lot. IMHO is good to make SIP more simple (for example by replying > > always to incoming IP:port in UDP) even if it breaks annoying backaward > > compatibility with old and extrange implementations. Let's move on! ;) > > > Ok... tell you what... you change your implementation and explain to > your customers why your product doesn't work with the stuff they've been > using successfully for years. Let us know how that goes... then again, > don't bother - we already know.
The other option is to continue with this pain forever and asking ourself why solutions as XMPP (for IM and presence) success, but not SIP SIMPLE. Let's explain to a new SIP developer that in case of SIP TCP the reply must go to the real source ip:port, in case of UDP is depends on if "rport" is present or not, then take a look to Via header, take the host but not the port... and all that stuf, and there will become a new XMPP developer. Anyway I understand what you say, but AFAIK aysimmetrical SIP devices are not common today, are they? Best regards. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
