Brett, I think RFC 7118 example 8.2 is missing that language that WSS is used based on the local client policy. This would make the entire example correct and compliant with RFC 3621. From my point of view this is more of an editorial nit, then the actual specification issue, but this can be discussed in more details in sipcore.
_____________ Roman Shpount On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Brett Tate <br...@broadsoft.com> wrote: > > 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
