> Then we may very well consider making "respond to CRLF with > CRLF" a proposed standardized way too. > I mean it is simple and works. Which I prefer over > negotiation protocols.
So, basically, you are proposing that for connection-oriented transport, we use "respond to double-CRLF with single-CRLF" instead of Christer's draft. I assume that would mean that for UDP transport, we'd still be using Christer's draft. Is this your proposal? _______________________________________________ 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
