That's an improper dichotomy for the question at hand.
Nobody's arguing against ignoring the SDP if it shows up.
The question to be addressed is the ambiguity the spec currently
suffers around whether things should put something there.
The danger in leaving the "its ok to put something there because
things are supposed to ignore it" is the slippery slope that
leads to people _requiring_ it be there, then _requiring_ that it
mean something (which somebody must already be doing or
people wouldn't be so uptight about it being there) and then we have
a deployed de-facto standard that does not match the documentation.
Is that what you're arguing for?
RjS
On Nov 21, 2007, at 2:20 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
On Nov 20, 2007, at 8:54 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
Yeah - that's not it - it doesn't match your assertion even.
That text says that _if_ SDP shows up in the 200, you have to
ignore it.
It doesn't say anything about it matching the 18x, and it doesn't
say anything about whether the UAS is allowed to put it in the 200
in the first place.
Btw - that passage _IS BEING USED_ to argue that it's ok, and even
_right_, to put SDP in the 200 OK since things MUST ignore it.
Apply Postel's maxim here.
Broken UAs might (and from what I hear, frequently do) ignore the
answer in the 18x, instead taking the answer from the 200. If these
answers are identical, then it works. If they aren't, then it doesn't.
Is it better to have a clearly described irrecoverable failure or a
working call?
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
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
