RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-sips-03.txt: Closing of Opened issues

Yes, that draft is wrong and needs to be fixed. 

The correct behavior is 1/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:vkg@alcatel-lucent.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 14:48
> To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
> Cc: sip@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-sips-03.txt: Closing of 
> Opened issues
> 
> Francois Audet wrote:
> > VIA already supports SCTP, TLS-SCTP. And the draft provides the 
> > references to RFC 4168 that defines it.
> 
> We've had this conversation before.
> 
> That is all well and fine for Vias (responses), but what 
> about requests triggered by a R-URI?
> 
> > DTLS is defined in
> > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sip/draft-jennings-sip-dtls-03.txt.
> 
> dtls-03 says that a SIP URI to be sent over DTLS should look 
> like the following:
> 
>     sip:alice@example.com;transport=dtls-udp
> 
> Two questions:
>    1/ should it not be "sips" scheme here?
>    2/ If we are endorsing "transport=dtls-udp" in a SIP URI, then
>       saying that you should not put "transport=tls" in a SIP URI
>       seems silly. (Note that I personally do not like how
>       implementations have continued to use "transport=tls"
>       despite rfc3261 deprecating this.  But questions will arise
>       in the future that why are we allowing "transport=dtls-udp"
>       and not "transport=tls"?)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - vijay
> --
> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
> 2701 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9F-546, Lisle, Illinois 60532 (USA)
> Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
> WWW:   http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bell-labs
> 

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip