13 aug 2009 kl. 23.12 skrev Dean Willis:
Hmm. Could it be that since SIPS (draft-ietf-siip-sips) requires e2e TLS even more strongly than did 3261 for original sips URIs. So if a URI used in a record-route resolves both TLS and non-TLS, there's a possibility that the return stroke might not use TLS, thereby breaking the e2e TLS requirement. But your proposed wording change seems to have the same effect.
I did not read the draft as SIPS requiring e2e TLS. We still use proxys and have clear communication within the proxy. E2E to me is UAC -> UAS with encryption ALL the way and no middleman.
Did I misunderstand? /O _______________________________________________ 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
