(removing the RFC Editor, and setting reply-to to the sipcore list) Some thing to think about when considering errata on the existing Tables 2 and 3 in RFC3261:
We have had many conversations about the utility of maintaining tables 2 and 3. I think the most recent was around the Anaheim meeting - see the notes at: <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/77/minutes/sipcore.html> We had strong support for not continuing to add information to Tables 2 and 3, but not to remove the existing tables from the document. Maintaining the existing table is probably a separate question, but keep the arguments noted in the minutes above in mind when choosing to do so. RjS On Aug 2, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > 2011/8/2 Bob Penfield <bpenfi...@acmepacket.com>: >> The entry in the table should be "c" (not "m"). A Contact is not required in >> a 100 Trying response. The Contact is only required for a 1xx that creates a >> dialog. > > Right. > > -- > Iñaki Baz Castillo > <i...@aliax.net> _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business. Use sip-implement...@cs.columbia.edu for questions on how to develop a SIP implementation. Use dispa...@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip. Use sipc...@ietf.org for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP specifications.
