Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2010/3/20 Schwarz Albrecht <[email protected]>:
>> It's amazing that such a fundamental session configuration topic is not
>> really well specified (explicitly, detailed, unambiguous) in RFCs 3261 &
>> 3264. Just wondering ...
>
> I agree. When such kind of issues occur it means that interoperability
> is difficult as different implementors would not interpret the same
> (as the specification is not detailed and clear).
>
> This is: when a question requires a long thread to be "resolved" with
> the participation of varios SIP experts, and there is no full
> agreement between them, then we have a problem and perhaps such
> specification should be improved or redesigned (IMHO).
I agree. In this case I find it a bit surprising that there are
questions. I thought this stuff was clear.
But what's clear to those of us that have been working with this stuff
for a long time isn't always clear to newcomers. Thats one of the reason
we keep having various clarification documents.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
