On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10/05/2010 11:06 AM, M. Ranganathan wrote: >> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Alex Balashov wrote: >>>> The RFCs are fairly >>>> >>>>> Any of you are aware of literature on how to write SIP stacks besides the >>>>> documentation provided by open source SIP stacks? >>>> >>>> The RFCs are fairly exacting and rigourous on the topic of the layers of >>>> abstraction required on the implementational level. >>>> >>> >>> Honestly, reading an RFC is not a simple task, and it's an >>> especially daunting task when considering the huge number of RFC >>> that need to be read and understood to even think to start writing a >>> SIP stack (I mean a professional grade SIP stack, not the toy stacks >>> that you can download on the Internet). >> >> There are a handful of very good SIP Stacks that one can download on >> the Internet. What exactly is a "toy stack" ? Is it a stack that is used in >> SIP toys? > > toy > n 1: an artifact designed to be played with [syn: {plaything}] > 2: a nonfunctional replica of something else (frequently used > as a modifier); "a toy stove" > 3: copy that reproduces something in greatly reduced size [syn: > {miniature}]
Aha! A small footprint SIP Stack? A very good attribute for a SIP stack. > > The 3 definitions probably apply. LOL. Perhaps the erudite list member would care to probabilistically defend his assertions, having so recklessly proposed them? Since this is not forum for flame wars, I shall rest my case. Ranga. -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
