> In any case, there is no need for WSS URL transport parameter (as > there was never a real need for tls URL transport parameter).
Concerning tls, some apparently still find it useful since they continue to use it as mentioned within the following thread. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg06531.html > Is your intent to point the issue with the RFC example or to > figure out the correct implementation strategy? I'm attempting to understand the various options for an edge proxy/B2BUA to request that the client continue to use the existing ws or wss transport (with/without use of RFC 5626). This led me to noticing RFC 7118 example 8.2 which appears to be incorrect or missing related normative text. Since I hadn't received a response on sip-implementors, I started a similar thread on sipcore last week. Since it sounds like errata potentially should be raised against RFC 7118, we should move this discussion to sipcore. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg06605.html _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
