Normally, I would agree with you. But transport=tls is so intertwined with SIPS that I'd rather fix both at the same time.
What I haven't heard is any voice strongly being against the re-instatement of transport=tls (except perhaps myself, but I don't care anymore: just want to move on). > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 16:17 > To: Gilad Shaham > Cc: Robert Sparks; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); SIP IETF; Dean Willis > Subject: Re: [Sip] Ready for WGLC on SIPS draft? Any last > thoughts ontransport=tls? > > Jumping in. I just happened to pick Gilad's message to respond to. > > I've only been loosely following this discussion. But it > seems to me that this transport=tls issue is a distraction > from finishing the sips draft. Why does the sips draft have > any responsibility for addressing this issue? > > I think it would be better to let the sips draft be finished > and then move on to addressing all of the (many) important > security issues that sips doesn't solve, as a separate effort. _______________________________________________ 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
