Re: [Sipping] Is SDP in an unreliable response "the answer" ???

[OKUMURA Shinji <shinji.okumura@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brett,

I think nobody has been discussing on the assumption that UA
does not support those 3 items. (At least me, Gao, Paul)

Such workarounds is out of scope in this draft as you no doubt
know.

Regards,
Shinji

Brett Tate <brett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:32:29 -0700
>> > I agree.  I think that the complication is less about the RFC
>> ambiguity and more about vendors attempting to find ways to interop
>> when some devices don't support (or disabled support of) the following:
>> 1) interactions with forking proxies, 2) rfc3262, or 3) rfc3311.
>> 
>> You may be right about this.
>> 
>> > Devices which don't support the above 3 items usually need work-a-
>> rounds which are not compliant to SIP's offer/answer rules.  Thus
>> fixing potential RFC ambiguity does little to fix the real problem
>> beyond highlighting that most/all of the work-a-rounds are non
>> compliant or not desirable.
>> 
>> I'm not sure what point you are making here.
>
>I think that the real problem is that some devices don't support
>(or disable support of) the following:
>1) interactions with forking proxies, 2) rfc3262, or 3) rfc3311.
>I was mainly just attempting to encourage vendors to support
>these 3 items so that all the non-complaint or not-desirable
>work-arounds can be deprecated more quickly.  However I doubt
>that the need for such work-arounds will go away any time soon.
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip
Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP