2011/4/13 Dean Willis <[email protected]>: > On Apr 8, 2011, at 5:25 PM, Adam Roach wrote: > >> I don't think this is warranted. This behavior of Timer E is well documented >> in RFC 3261. It does not bear reiteration every time it is mentioned. >> >> In particular, the quoted paragraph is quite clear on the topic, if one is >> to finish reading it: >> > > Other than the fact that it appears to disagree with itself, 3261 is quite > clear. > > While it is true that the behavior of the timer is correctly-described in one > part of the spec, it seems to be incorrectly (or at least misleadingly) > described in an early passage. So while reiteration may not be needed, > correct initial iteration is probably warranted. Or the misleading initial > passage could be excised. > > If you say something only once, say it right. If you must say it again, don't > say something different. Just say it more clearly.
+1 -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business. Use [email protected] for questions on how to develop a SIP implementation. Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip. Use [email protected] for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP specifications.
