> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Willis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 08:59
> To: SIP IETF
> Subject: [Sip] Ready for WGLC on SIPS draft? Any last
> thoughts on transport=tls?
>
> I have received some personal feedback from more than one
> credible source that the draft's direction on transport=tls
> is inconsistent with the real world and possibly not optimal.
> But so far, Juha has been the only one I've noticed trying to
> explain this issue "on the record", and one voice does not
> overbalance a quiet consensus. So I'd like to ask the rest of
> you (if any) who actually feel this way to step up to the
> plate and explain what you're talking about, because I don't
> get it and it looks like a bunch of the WG doesn't get it.
> Please! If you don't step up now, I'm probably going to make
> rude "raspberry" noises if you bring it up someplace like Chicago.
2 comments and a request...
Comment: Indeed, the use of transport=tls seems fairly widespread.
1 However, it is not clear at all to me that it is use
consistently accross different implementations. In fact, I'm
pretty sure it's not.
Comment: The concept of "one hop" with transport=tls is tricky. The
presence
2 of transport=tls in a URI would presumably apply to the hop
identifying that resource (i.e., the last hop), as opposed to
the first hop. Latest draft (-04) discusses this.
Request: If people make comments on the use of transport=tls, please
be very specific on where you are envisioning it's usage, e.g.,
Request-URI, Contact in Register, Contact in dialog-creating
request, Record-Route, etc. It makes a big difference.
_______________________________________________
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
