Hi Robert,
>I'm only halfway through -03 and I'll be sending more later,
>but this winged one of the comments I was going to make.
>
>I think this MUST that Brett was pointing to needs to be a
>MAY, not a MUST or a SHOULD.
>
>This is an optimization. Nothing breaks if the proxy decides
>to
I'm only halfway through -03 and I'll be sending more later, but this
winged one of the comments I was going to make.
I think this MUST that Brett was pointing to needs to be a MAY, not a
MUST or a SHOULD.
This is an optimization. Nothing breaks if the proxy decides to not
forward a 199 -
Hi,
>>I am still not sure I understand. Even if the device answers quickly,
the proxy can still send 199 if it receives an error response.
>
>I agree. However the section 6.1 paragraph 2 text indicates that the
proxy MUST send 199.
>
>I'd prefer that it is downgraded to a SHOULD to allow the 1
> I am still not sure I understand. Even if the
> device answers quickly, the proxy can still
> send 199 if it receives an error response.
I agree. However the section 6.1 paragraph 2 text indicates that the
proxy MUST send 199. I'd prefer that it is downgraded to a SHOULD to
allow the 199 to
Hi Brett,
>Replying to email concerning version 2 since these comments are also
applicable to version draft-ietf-sip-199-03.
>
>>Section 4 paragraph 4: Concerning "the client SHALL discard the 199
>>responses", is "SHALL" too strong since 100rel may be used? The
>>strength of "SHALL" is like
Hi Christer,
Replying to email concerning version 2 since these comments are also
applicable to version draft-ietf-sip-199-03.
> > Section 4 paragraph 4: Concerning "the client SHALL
> > discard the 199 responses", is "SHALL" too strong
> > since 100rel may be used? The strength of "SHALL"
