Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > 2010/3/20 Schwarz Albrecht <albrecht.schw...@alcatel-lucent.com>: >> It's amazing that such a fundamental session configuration topic is not >> really well specified (explicitly, detailed, unambiguous) in RFCs 3261 & >> 3264. Just wondering ... > > I agree. When such kind of issues occur it means that interoperability > is difficult as different implementors would not interpret the same > (as the specification is not detailed and clear). > > This is: when a question requires a long thread to be "resolved" with > the participation of varios SIP experts, and there is no full > agreement between them, then we have a problem and perhaps such > specification should be improved or redesigned (IMHO).
I agree. In this case I find it a bit surprising that there are questions. I thought this stuff was clear. But what's clear to those of us that have been working with this stuff for a long time isn't always clear to newcomers. Thats one of the reason we keep having various clarification documents. Thanks, Paul _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors