Yes, that draft is wrong and needs to be fixed. The correct behavior is 1/
> -----Original Message----- > From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 14:48 > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-sips-03.txt: Closing of > Opened issues > > Francois Audet wrote: > > VIA already supports SCTP, TLS-SCTP. And the draft provides the > > references to RFC 4168 that defines it. > > We've had this conversation before. > > That is all well and fine for Vias (responses), but what > about requests triggered by a R-URI? > > > DTLS is defined in > > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sip/draft-jennings-sip-dtls-03.txt. > > dtls-03 says that a SIP URI to be sent over DTLS should look > like the following: > > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];transport=dtls-udp > > Two questions: > 1/ should it not be "sips" scheme here? > 2/ If we are endorsing "transport=dtls-udp" in a SIP URI, then > saying that you should not put "transport=tls" in a SIP URI > seems silly. (Note that I personally do not like how > implementations have continued to use "transport=tls" > despite rfc3261 deprecating this. But questions will arise > in the future that why are we allowing "transport=dtls-udp" > and not "transport=tls"?) > > Thanks, > > - vijay > -- > Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent > 2701 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9F-546, Lisle, Illinois 60532 (USA) > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED],bell-labs.com,acm.org} > WWW: http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bell-labs > _______________________________________________ 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
