[no subject]

For a parallel, see the rather major enhancements that occured between
HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1. If an overhaul of SIP of that magnitude is ever
attempted, there might be a minor version increment. However, given the
sheer volume of protocol spec at this point, it is quite unlikely (IMHO)
that such an undertaking will ever be attempted. Further, because of the
foresight of adding the "Require" and "Proxy-Require" mechanisms, it is
additionally unlikely that such a change will ever even be desirable.

A major version change, which is even less likely, would probably represent
completely scrapping the protocol and starting from scratch.

(As a footnote: like SIP, HTTP has had multiple RFCs that describe one
protocol version: RFC2068 and RFC2616 both describe HTTP/1.1 -- so we're not
doing anything particularly unprecedented or even unusual in doing the
same).

> I wasn't tracking the
> mailing list when the version got upgraded to 2.0.


It was almost 9 years ago.

SIP/1.0 was one of the proposals for a session invitation protocol when the
MMUSIC working group first started on that task back in early 1996. It was
very terse and SDP-like. SCIP/1.0 was a proposal that was offered at the
same time. Almost immediately, they were merged together into one protocol,
dubbed "SIP/2.0". To my knowledge, neither of the original protocols ever
escaped research facilities.

> I think I'll currently stick to rfc3261 and hope for the best. Will deal
> with 2543 as and when issues arise...


You shouldn't have to. If you do encounter any such problems, please post
about them to the list so we can register a bug and fix it in the next
release.

/a

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip