> So, enforce all the RFC's? SIP standards to all exclusion? > Truly bad idea, however: it IS an open source, GPL system, and anyone > here has access to the source code and can 'fix' it themselves. > >> will go back to "mostly working" for such ITSPs. It is just true that >> all call flows have not been tested for such buggy ITSPs. Unless we >> can do that, it is leaving the door open for customer issues in the >> field. >> >> > PLEASE LIST all the 100%, fully SIP/sipxbridge compliant ITSP's, > > However, some of that is only 100% fully SIP/sipxbridge compliant if > you use the right phone/firmware combination. > > Saying 'you must be 100% SIP RFC COMPLIANT' is meaningless, since > there are in fact 'conflicting' RFC's, options that the ITSP could > pick that would be RFC complaint, that could break a fragile > implementation
Ranga didn't say anything at all about requireing that an ITSP be 100% anything. What he said was that some errors are so egregious that writing reasonable code to try to recover from them is so difficult that it imperils the stability and conformance of the code for those that are reasonably compliant. I don't believe that any of the changes he's discussing are problems with any of the large ITSPs. _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
