Re: [Sip] Sip-199-02: majors and nits from Robert (was: RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-199-02)

[Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan at acmepacket.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg at ericsson.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 7:55 AM
>
> I don't like must-nots if it doesn't break the protocol. But, I agree we
> should strongly recommend against it.

Developers and product managers read SHOULD NOT as basically optional, and customers have a hard time forcing vendors to follow SHOULDs compared with MUSTs.  We've seen this time and time again.  The _protocol_ may not "break", but user expectations and experience "breaks", and at the end of the day that hurts all of us.  Well, it doesn't hurt me right now - it's created a market opportunity for SBCs to go and fix it; but having middleboxes fix bad implementations is not good in the long term for SIP.

IMO interoperability isn't just about _protocol_ behavior, it's the resultant user experience too.  Legitimate call attempts must succeed.  The spice must flow. ;)

-hadriel
_______________________________________________
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