Hi Dale,what we have tried to do with this draft is to clarify things that were unclear and to specify stuff that we think it is essential (e.g., support for multipart). Since a certain degree of backwards compatibility has to be achieved, we are not free to specify whatever we want at this point. As you point out, maybe some pathological cases are not well covered, but we need to work within the constrains given by the current situation.
Thanks, Gonzalo Dale.Worley at comcast.net wrote:
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at cisco.com> Does that help? There's no way of knowing until a clear and allegedly complete set of rules is enunciated. The question is not to eliminate this one problem but to make it verifiable that no problems remain. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
_______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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