At 15:04 28/09/2007, Thomas Froment wrote: >Juha Heinanen wrote: >>Thomas Froment writes: >> >> > - Another solution is to RECOMMEND to NOT put any transport parameter >> > on Record-Route URI if the transport is a a transport protocol not >> > mandated by RFC3261 (i.e. a transport different from UDP, TCP or >> > TLS). >> >>those transports are mandated by ietf, but not in practice widely >>implemented. so a solution cannot make an assumption that all mandated >>transports are always supported. >So well, I assume we don't try to specify a standard for those who don't >support it, so what is your proposal?
IMO, a clean solution to that is to have record-routing as SHOULD for proxies. For a variety of reasons, record-routing is used almost everywhere, and there are like troubles if it is not. It should be disabled only for a good reason, and in such case whoever does so should be careful about side-effects. -jiri >_______________________________________________ >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 -- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ _______________________________________________ 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
