The main reason that the draft progressed to RFC status was because so many vendors kept using/implementing the diversion drafts instead of RFC 4244. Draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis supposedly addresses some of the reasons why vendors were reluctant to quit using the diversion solution.
The following is from RFC 2026: 4.2.4 Historic A specification that has been superseded by a more recent specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is assigned to the "Historic" level. (Purists have suggested that the word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of "Historic" is historical.) Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced specifications from other standards bodies. (See Section 7.) > -----Original Message----- > From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 9:02 AM > To: Brett Tate > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Find-me/follow-me and relevant headers > > 2010/6/17 Brett Tate <[email protected]>: > > For clarity, the use of diversion became a historic RFC this year > since many vendors use it: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5806 > > Thanks for pointing it out. > > What is the purpose of standarizing a new RFC with a similar meaning > of an existing one (RFC 4244)? > > -- > Iñaki Baz Castillo > <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
