Christer Holmberg writes: > I agree with Hadriel. It is very difficult to, in a spec, say what an > entity not supporting the spec should do - because implementors may > not even have read the spec.
i don't remember i have proposed saying something about an entity (UA) not supporting the spec. what i have proposed is that an UA supporting the keep spec should still send CRLFs even it does not get back keep=yes. > But, again, we can choose to not > explicitly forbid sending CRLF, which means that people not > supporting "keep" can continue sending CRLF without anyone being able > to tell them that what they are doing goes against some spec etc. i still don't understand why we need an addition to sip protocol for CRLFs keepalives. why can't you instead say in your draft that before sending a register or any other sip request, UA sends double-CRLF to find out if ob proxy supports CRLF keepalives. it does, if UA gets back a single-CRLF and otherwise not. in my opinion, it would be much simpler than inventing yet another addition to sip protocol on top to the countless additions there already exists and that no-one has implemented. -- juha _______________________________________________ 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
