On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 17:32 -0700, Adam Roach wrote: > self-made GRUUs What is a "self-made GRUU"?
> > In 4.5.2, it seems to me to be unwise to allow the notifier to respond > > 403 to subscriptions within existing dialogs, as that is a significant > > constriction of the current requirements. > > In what way? Implementors are still allowed to accept such incoming > connections, but one of the key changes I think is necessary in this > revision is to free implementors from the morass of coding for dialog > sharing -- because MOST PEOPLE GET IT WRONG. I see little value with > maintaining backwards "compatibility" with a feature that, by and large, > wasn't compatible between multiple implementations in the first place. That's a good point, although I fear that the real effect will be to free implementors from *fixing their implementations* if something is incorrect. At the least, I think that you *must* limit the ability to send 403 to devices that *are* using GRUUs as their contact. I can *easily* see an implementor implementing the "403" part of -bis- and deciding to omit the "GRUU contact" part. > > In regard to the long list following "To implement dialog sharing", is > > any of this material new? As far as I can tell, it is a summary of > > 3265/5057. If so, it should be explicitly labeled as such, and refer > > the reader to those RFCs as the normative text. If not, the > > relationship of this list with those RFCs needs to be made explicit. > > The list you refer to is copied from various parts of the original text > (i.e., 3265). The intention is for this document to obsolete 3265, so > referring to 3265 for procedures would make no sense. So you're saying that this list is *complete*? 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
