2011/8/2 Robert Sparks <[email protected]>: > (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.
I also think that table 2 (at least table 2) is not useful, and just adds complexity. It's much better to explain/describe/mandate the presence of headers in the text (IMHO). Regards. -- 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.
