On Nov 24, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 4:51 PM
So, soon people will have to start deploying SBCs, in order to fix
the
mistakes made by their existing SBCs..... ;)
Well people do upgrade. I think they usually find it easier to
upgrade their SBCs than upgrade their customers' PBX's or peer's
equipment, or even their own core servers.
But, I think the correct way to prevent those is to make sure our
specs
are clear enough, and easy to understand - not to start making
restrictions which may shoot back later.
The thing is with the 199-type of mechanism I actually don't think
we should ever allow such a thing to be Required, ever.
What you are basically asking for is to create a new 1xx response
code some device may require in order to operate correctly, and that
I think is a bad idea.
Okay, that's an interesting argument.
In essence, you are saying that Requiring 199 support might break
interoperability, therefore it should be forbidden.
Yet we have test scenarios where requiring 199 might be reasonable in
order to differentiate the set of results expected in a test scenario.
Such a scenario doesn't break anything.
This is hard to reconcile.
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
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
