So, YOUR developers are the ones who are stupid? ;)
> -----Original Message----- > From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22. marraskuuta 2008 19:35 > To: Christer Holmberg > Cc: SIP IETF > Subject: RE: [Sip] Sip-199-02: majors and nits from Robert > (was: RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-199-02) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 7:55 AM > > > > I don't like must-nots if it doesn't break the protocol. > But, I agree > > we should strongly recommend against it. > > Developers and product managers read SHOULD NOT as basically > optional, and customers have a hard time forcing vendors to > follow SHOULDs compared with MUSTs. We've seen this time and > time again. The _protocol_ may not "break", but user > expectations and experience "breaks", and at the end of the > day that hurts all of us. Well, it doesn't hurt me right now > - it's created a market opportunity for SBCs to go and fix > it; but having middleboxes fix bad implementations is not > good in the long term for SIP. > > IMO interoperability isn't just about _protocol_ behavior, > it's the resultant user experience too. Legitimate call > attempts must succeed. The spice must flow. ;) > > -hadriel > _______________________________________________ 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
