On Mar 28, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
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.
I find myself in agreement with all three arguments here.
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
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
