But for that, you can use SIPS in Record-Route, no? It would be semantically identical, no?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Juha Heinanen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 13:03 > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > Cc: Robert Sparks; SIP IETF; Dean Willis > Subject: RE: [Sip] Ready for WGLC on SIPS draft? Any last > thoughts on transport=tls? > > Francois Audet writes: > > > I guess the real question is "do we need to solve this case"? > > > > I guess to me it means that it would be useful only for > > mutual TLS cases. Is this big enough of a problem to justify > > the expense of having to deal with the parameter? > > proxy-to-proxy communication is important enough case to > justify the transport=tls parameter. > > -- 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
