> > 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
