You are absolutely correct: this is insane. Like giving matches to kids and telling them not to use it.
I don't recall who it was that wanted the procedures to remain in the text. I believe the rationale was "how to deal with legacy SIPS implementations". I really think the text would be much simpler if we removed section 3.3.2 altogether. > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Roach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 14:07 > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip] WGLC on draft-ietf-sip-sips > > On 7/17/07 5:21 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > > (As WG chair) > > > > We reached the end of the time when WGLC comments were requested on > > Monday. > > > > If there are any last comments sitting out there that you have been > > meaning to submit, can I suggest you get them in an quickly > as possible. > > > > Sorry for the late comment here, but I find section 3.3.2 > perplexing in the current incarnation of the draft. It made > sense before (e.g., in -02, which was the current version in > Prague) -- but now that we're changing behavior, it seems > completely out of place. > > By my reading, section 3.3.2 basically says, "If you > implement this specification, you are explicitly forbidden > from doing the following procedure, which is now explained in > enough detail to implement." > > I would propose removing section 3.3.2. > > /a > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
