I'm just wondering if folks have an opinion on this. I mean if we leave it as is, we can write off all of stateless servers, can't we.
-jiri At 08:52 03/03/2008, Jiri Kuthan wrote: >while I agree that fixing premature dropping of transaction context >is the right way to go, I'm wondering if we are not overstandizing >with requiring a proxy server to drop replies without related transaction >context. > >My esthetic preference is not to standardize this as a MUST and document the >well-known relaying risks (possibly in form of a SHOULD recommendation). >It appears to me that there are valid cases (say failover in >trusted-environment) >where it can be more benefecial to complete transactions statelessly than >protection against relaying. (which is not very strong anyhow). > >-jiri > > > >-- >Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ > >_______________________________________________ >Sip mailing list https://www.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 -- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
