664 - Yes - we are making a behavior explicit that obviates the need
to do rewriting, and the clause that talks about rewriting starts out
"If the URI placed in the Record-Route header field needs to be
rewritten"
724 - Yes - this bug is asking for a clarification, not an essential
change to normative text. (The essence of the bug is to capture that
proxies should record route any time the transport details change
between coming in and going out).
735 - Not covered by the draft in question. That's a sips: question -
This one _will _ require normative changes to the spec, but will come
around only after we make more progress on the sips discussion. And
depending on how that comes out, it may or may not fall into the
category of an _essential_ correction.
RjS
On Apr 23, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
On Apr 23, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
I think this should go down the 1) path. This is a recommended use
of mechanisms that exist, not a change of any normative text.
So we can fix [BUG664], [BUG734], and [BUG735] with a BCP?
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
