Re: [Sip-implementors] RFC 3840 updating RFC 3261

2016-02-03 Thread Dale R. Worley
Paul Kyzivat writes: > Cases when "updated by" is and isn't used are subtle and sometimes > controversial. But in general, when a new document makes an extension > via an explicit extension point in the sip syntax, then it typically > isn't marked as an extension. My

[Sip-implementors] RFC 3840 updating RFC 3261

2016-02-03 Thread Sheldon Patry
hello, By reviewing RFCs I came with that question: RFC 3840, section 9 says: The following production updates the one in RFC 3261 [1 ] for contact-params: contact-params= c-p-q / c-p-expires /

Re: [Sip-implementors] RFC 3840 updating RFC 3261

2016-02-03 Thread Paul Kyzivat
On 2/3/16 11:23 AM, Sheldon Patry wrote: hello, By reviewing RFCs I came with that question: RFC 3840, section 9 says: The following production updates the one in RFC 3261 [1 ] for contact-params: