Thanks John. See below (I'm removing where we are in agreement).
> -----Original Message----- > From: Elwell, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 02:01 > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); [email protected] > Subject: RE: WGLC comments on sip-sips > > Francois, > > More below. I have stripped out the comments that have been > satisfactorily dealt with. > > John > > > > 8. In 4.1.1 "If a UA registers with a SIPS Contact header > field, the > > > registrar > > > returning a service route [RFC3608] MUST return a service route > > > consisting of SIP URIs if the intent of the registrar > is to allow > > > both SIP and SIPS to be used in requests sent by that > > client. If a > > > UA registers with a SIPS Contact header field, the registrar > > > returning a service route MUST return a service route > > consisting of > > > SIPS URIs if the intent of the registrar is to allow > > only SIPS URIs > > > to be used in requests sent by that UA." > > > > > > Presumably the intention of this is to state that RFC 3608 places > > > such a requirement on registrars. The language needs changing to > > > reflect this. > > > However, you didn't respond to the second part of my comment, > concerning the need for a change of language. Thinking about > this further, I now see that we are in fact updating RFC 3608 > - correct? If so, then don't we need to state this up front, > and also mention it in the Introduction section where we > mention RFC 3261? OK, I think you are right. It does in fact update 3608. I will fix it. > > > > > 11. In 4.2 "It is RECOMMENDED to use an outbound proxy as per the > > > procedures > > > defined in [I-D.ietf-sip-outbound] for supporting UACs > > that can not > > > provide a certificate for establishing a TLS connection > > (i.e., when > > > server-side authentication is used)." > > > This is a recommendation on a UA, not a proxy, so it does > not belong > > > as a normative statement in 4.2. > > > > I'm not sure I agree on this. Seems like the decision to use or not > > the procedures of sip-outbound in a proxy is a proxy > requirement, not > > a UA requirement. > [JRE] The words "It is RECOMMENDED to use an outbound proxy" > sound to me like a recommendation on a UA, i.e., a > recommendation that the UA be configured to use an outbound > proxy. Perhaps what we are trying to say is "It is > RECOMMENDED that a proxy be able to behave as an outbound > proxy as per the procedures...", in which case it would > indeed belong in this section. Ok, I'll fix as per your suggestion. > > > > > 13. "When a redirect server receives a request with a SIP > > > Request-URI, the > > > redirect server MAY redirect with a 3XX response to > either a SIP > > > or a > > > SIPS Contact header field. If the target UAS had registered > > > previously using a SIPS Contact header field, the > redirect server > > > SHOULD return a SIPS Contact header field if it is in an > > > environment > > > where TLS is usable (as described in the previous paragraph)." > > > This assumes that a redirect server is redirecting > directly to a UA, > > > i.e., to a contact. However, a redirect server can also > redirect to > > > another AoR that resolves to a domain proxy (or another redirect > > > server). In other words, the redirect server may not have any > > > knowledge of a "target UAS". > [JRE] You didn't answer this or make any changes. Do you > consider that no change is necessary? Sorry, I missed that. I guess in that case you can redirect to whatever you want. I'll make some changes. _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
