Yeah I've been thinking about what you said the other day about this, and I think I understand your point, but I still think MUST's and an update to 3261 would be good, for the following reasons:
1) We really should want to change 3261 to say MUST NOT put an ip-address/hostname in the call-id. Really in 20/20 hindsight I don't think it should have had one to begin with. 2) It's easier for customers to force vendors to do something if there's a MUST statement, standards-track RFC, vs. an informational recommendation/should. 3) Endpoint UAC vendors should do it *before* getting deployed and being told by customers to change after-wards. Specifically I'm thinking about vendors who don't attend IETF and aren't that up-to-speed on all the nuances and such. An update to 3261 with normative mandatory language is clearer, I think. -hadriel > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Roach [mailto:a...@nostrum.com] > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:20 PM > > Which is why an informational draft explaining the problem is useful, > while a normative document... not quite so much. > > Tell UACs: "If you include machine names in your Call-IDs, B2BUAs will > have reason to change them." There's no MUST or MUST NOT here, just an > explanation of rationale. > > Tell B2BUAs: "If a Call-ID doesn't contain an @ sign, you'll do everyone > a favor by not changing them, because it allows proper correlation of > related transactions an dialogs." Again, no MUST; no MUST NOT. Just > cause and effect. > > Then see if people want to play nice. The market will sort out if that's > valuable or not. > > /a _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use sip-implement...@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sipp...@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
