> >On your first question: If I send you a request using a SIPS >URI, and you accept it even if you don't support SIPS (because >you are a buggy implemenation), you will nevertheless put SIP >in the various URIs in your response, e.g., in the Contact >header. You may even muck-up the From or To. If you send me >mid-call requests later, you will most probably use SIP URIs >in From. If I detect something like that, I can probably >figure out something is wrong. Some of this is already covered >in the draft and in RFC 3261.
If it just doesn't support SIPS, It should just return "416 Unsupported URI scheme". Very pointed question, why do we want to develop standards for the BUGGY implementation. At the _most_, we can just say in BCP/INFORMATIONAL document that if it behaves like this, then it is buggy implementation. And we don't attempt to fix it in the specification. If we take this route, we might find numerous others BUGGY implementations of other parts of SIP specifications also. I just call them BUGS. And bugs are fixed by their owners during the upgrades/patches etc. > >On your second question. It's not the protocol that is broken but the >implementation. > We should not even attempt to fix the broken implementation via another add-on standards. I don't want to say now as Dean yesterday said season is over for hunting. Keep trying to fix it. Good luck. Thx Samir _______________________________________________ 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
