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

["Christer Holmberg" <christer.holmberg at ericsson.com>]

So, YOUR developers are the ones who are stupid? ;) 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:HKaplan at acmepacket.com] 
> Sent: 22. marraskuuta 2008 19:35
> To: Christer Holmberg
> Cc: SIP IETF
> Subject: RE: [Sip] Sip-199-02: majors and nits from Robert 
> (was: RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-199-02)
> 
> 
> > -----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