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

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

Normally, I would agree with you. But transport=tls is so 
intertwined with SIPS that I'd rather fix both at the same time.

What I haven't heard is any voice strongly being against the 
re-instatement of transport=tls (except perhaps myself, but I don't 
care anymore: just want to move on).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat at cisco.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 16:17
> To: Gilad Shaham
> Cc: Robert Sparks; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); SIP IETF; Dean Willis
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Ready for WGLC on SIPS draft? Any last 
> thoughts ontransport=tls?
> 
> Jumping in. I just happened to pick Gilad's message to respond to.
> 
> I've only been loosely following this discussion. But it 
> seems to me that this transport=tls issue is a distraction 
> from finishing the sips draft. Why does the sips draft have 
> any responsibility for addressing this issue?
> 
> I think it would be better to let the sips draft be finished 
> and then move on to addressing all of the (many) important 
> security issues that sips doesn't solve, as a separate effort.


_______________________________________________
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