Re: [sipcore] RFC4028 : Very basic question in 8.1

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 7/9/20 12:15 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 11:48 AM Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     On 7/9/20 11:15 AM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> 
>      >     No, You seem to attach great importance to that point, but I
>     don't
>      >     understand the importance of that.
>      >     Do you argue that it is enough for each developer to address any
>      >     issues on their own?
>      >
>      > I am arguing that this is an old and widely deployed
>     specification.  It
>      > might not be clearly written but it is widely implemented which
>     resulted
>      > in some general consensus on how it is supposed to work. Making
>     changes
>      > to it is dangerous unless they are targeting specific issues.
> 
>     I have been fielding questions about this rfc for almost two decades.
>     Based on that there is widespread misunderstanding of it.
> 
>     I think it would be very helpful to at least add some overview
>     discussion of what this mechanism is good for and what it is not good
>     for. Something along the lines of what I put in my prior reply.
> 
> 
> I would definitely agree to that. An informational, non-normative 
> section in the RFC overview can help a lot.

That would satisfy me.

> What I am trying to avoid is ending up with a non-obvious set of changes 
> to an existing specification which will act as a barrier to 
> implementation. Letting proxies increase SE would be an example of such 
> change.

Upon rereading 4028 I was surprised to discover that proxies MAY 
increase SE to the extent necessary to conform with an increased Min-SE! 
I hadn't remembered that part. But AFAIK that is the only case where it 
is allowed.

	Thanks,
	Paul