Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-sips-03.txt: Closing of Opened issues

[jh at tutpro.com (Juha Heinanen)]

Thomas Froment writes:

 > RR is for sure the matter of SIP proxies, and the question you asked on 
 > UDP to TLS case is a question that many implementors had one day or
 > another.

i meant why would someone care if proxy does single or double rr,
because UAs only deal with the topmost one and have no way of knowing if
a proxy double rr'ed or not.  same for other proxies.

 > Sometimes it raises interoperability problems by making UAs change their 
 > transport betwen initial and subsequent requests, generally asking the 
 > proxy implementor: "why the hell you don't put any transport on your 
 > record route since I contacted you using TCP?"...

this is not related to double or single rr, but if transport parameter
is added or not.

 > So, if the BCP is useful for SIP proxy developers, this is still 
 > something...

yes.

 > who would like to deprecate RR rewriting?
 > who want to keep it?
 > who care? ;-)

where is rr re-writing specified so that it could be deprecated?  

as i told double rr is widely used in real deployments and we haven't
noticed any major problems.  so if it is not really broken i don't see
any reason to fit it.

-- juha


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