Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-record-route-fix-08 Changes

["Olle E. Johansson" <oej at edvina.net>]

13 aug 2009 kl. 23.12 skrev Dean Willis:
> Hmm. Could it be that since SIPS (draft-ietf-siip-sips) requires e2e  
> TLS even more strongly than did 3261 for original sips URIs. So if a  
> URI used in a record-route resolves both TLS and non-TLS, there's a  
> possibility that the return stroke might not use TLS, thereby  
> breaking the e2e TLS requirement. But your proposed wording change  
> seems to have the same effect.


I did not read the draft as SIPS requiring e2e TLS. We still use  
proxys and have clear communication within the proxy. E2E to me is UAC  
-> UAS with encryption ALL the way and no middleman.

Did I misunderstand?

/O