Hi All, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I would like to get the discussion back on track
The questin is "Is it a MUST condition even for a REGISTER request to have sips contact when the next hop is sips"? Let me explain the situation a bit in detail. Assume UA1 is trying t do a "third-party" registration for UA2. For UA1 the next hop is sips but UA2 does not support TLS. If the contact is registered as sips, then UA2 will not be able to receive incoming calls which will be over TLS. How to hanlde such a scenario? Thanks Chozhan A ________________________________ From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <i...@aliax.net> To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@cisco.com> Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sent: Wed, 21 April, 2010 9:56:17 PM Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] contact header scheme 2010/4/21 Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@cisco.com>: > Rather that considering it "hyper-exotic and unfeasible", you could just > consider it "forward looking". Yes, I understant. However under my experience "forward looking" features of IETF are "hyper-exotic and unfeasible" features in the real world. Let's wait 10 years to see if somebody implements a feature like you suggest, if not then I'm right ;) Thanks. PS: Better if we wait for 20 years (I will already wait for 20 years until SIMPLE gets usable and feasible). -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <i...@aliax.net> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
