> >> You mean saying: > >> "Re-registrations and single Contact > >> de-registrations MUST use the same instance-id and reg-id > values as > >> the corresponding initial registration." > >> <kcj> Yes this is my suggestion > >> > >> Rohan? > > > > I'm OK with this recommendation. > > I'm not happy with this MUST. > > The quoted statement already *is* normative. It is not > necessary to include a MUST statement to make a statement > normative. Excessive and unnecessary use of RFC 2119 > language impairs clarity and readability. > Based on several requests from readers, I removed a lot of > extraneous MUSTs and the spec was much easier to read.
I think the point is that we are not adding really a new requirement here. It's more like we are stating what is a re-registration in the context of insteance-id. So I agree with Rohan. _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
