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
