Hi Dale,
what we have tried to do with this draft is to clarify things that were
unclear and to specify stuff that we think it is essential (e.g.,
support for multipart). Since a certain degree of backwards
compatibility has to be achieved, we are not free to specify whatever we
want at this point. As you point out, maybe some pathological cases are
not well covered, but we need to work within the constrains given by the
current situation.
Thanks,
Gonzalo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Does that help?
There's no way of knowing until a clear and allegedly complete set of
rules is enunciated. The question is not to eliminate this one
problem but to make it verifiable that no problems remain.
Dale
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
