Thomas Froment writes: > So, please read the the draft, I cannot reword it with a smaller number > of words in the mailing list...
there is so many sip working group drafts that it is impossible for someone who also needs to do some real work to read them all. i just got worried when i noticed that some changes to rfc3261 were proposed. looks like a complicated issue, if it the reasons cannot be states in a couple of sentences. > To be compatible with that statement, in your use case, > I think you should use double RR, on the UDP side, use a RR header with > transport=UDP or NO transport parameter (that was my question: do we > allow to put > this transport parameter in some circumstances?), > on the TLS side, do not use any transport parameter, but use the sips > scheme on RR. > Does it answer your question? yes, you answered my question, but the answer is totally unacceptable. i repeat, there is no way my proxy can go and change uri scheme from sip to sips, since my proxy has no way to know that tls is supported on the following hops and, if not, the request that started as sip will fail. -- juha _______________________________________________ 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
