Thomas Froment writes: > RR is for sure the matter of SIP proxies, and the question you asked on > UDP to TLS case is a question that many implementors had one day or > another.
i meant why would someone care if proxy does single or double rr, because UAs only deal with the topmost one and have no way of knowing if a proxy double rr'ed or not. same for other proxies. > Sometimes it raises interoperability problems by making UAs change their > transport betwen initial and subsequent requests, generally asking the > proxy implementor: "why the hell you don't put any transport on your > record route since I contacted you using TCP?"... this is not related to double or single rr, but if transport parameter is added or not. > So, if the BCP is useful for SIP proxy developers, this is still > something... yes. > who would like to deprecate RR rewriting? > who want to keep it? > who care? ;-) where is rr re-writing specified so that it could be deprecated? as i told double rr is widely used in real deployments and we haven't noticed any major problems. so if it is not really broken i don't see any reason to fit it. -- 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
