RE: [Sip] Ready for WGLC on SIPS draft? Any last thoughts on transport=tls?

["Francois Audet" <audet at nortel.com>]

But for that, you can use SIPS in Record-Route, no?

It would be semantically identical, no?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juha Heinanen [mailto:jh at tutpro.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 13:03
> To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
> Cc: Robert Sparks; SIP IETF; Dean Willis
> Subject: RE: [Sip] Ready for WGLC on SIPS draft? Any last 
> thoughts on transport=tls?
> 
> Francois Audet writes:
> 
>  > I guess the real question is "do we need to solve this case"?
>  >
>  > I guess to me it means that it would be useful only for  > 
> mutual TLS cases. Is this big enough of a problem to justify  
> > the expense of having to deal with the parameter?
> 
> proxy-to-proxy communication is important enough case to 
> justify the transport=tls parameter.
> 
> -- 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