Double record-routing is completely othogonal to the topic of sips. Furthermore, Double record-routing IS the preferred mechanism to use when you need to switch transport, URI schemes, IPv4/IPv6 mapping, etc. Double R-R is good (TM), and preferable to rewriting as per 3261.
It's just that this spec does not use it for the purpose of mappping between sip to sips, because it does not support mapping between sip to sips. > -----Original Message----- > From: Juha Heinanen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 08:02 > To: Robert Sparks > Cc: [email protected]; Dean Willis > Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-sips-03.txt: Closing of > Opened issues > > Robert Sparks writes: > > > I also think you and dean (at least) have been talking > past each > other. There is no prohibition in 3261 against a > proxy adding more than > one RR value. And there is > definitely nothing from the vantage point > of elements on > either side that would break if it did so (assuming it > put > appropriate values in of course). > > fine, we can then put this discussion into rest (assuming > that someone does not try to in some later document to > prohibit double r-r'ing). > > -- 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
