Just a quick comment on proxies that act on 302's, there is an expired draft
"draft-rajesh-sipping-303" that proposed a new response that specifically
allowed proxies to act on a redirect. This may be used to clarify the behavior
on 302's that must go all the way back to the caller.
Thanks,
Sriram Parameswar
-----Original Message-----
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:58:55 -0500
From: "Francois Audet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sip] E.164 - who owns it
To: "Hadriel Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dean Willis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Anders Kristensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: SIP IETF <[email protected]>, Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan
WING <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I think Hadriel is right.
As much as I agree that from a technical perspective, having 302s not
recursed on by proxies is better, I can't see this generally becoming
the norm in this SIP universe. It's too late for that.
Maybe in SIP Four Dot Oh.
_______________________________________________
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
