Subject: RE: [Sip] Path to Working Group Item

From: "James Undery" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 17:46:49 -0000

Now I've discovered it's a tag team I thought I better join as I've
always wanted a lycra costume and mask ;-).

(more sensible) comment below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]

> the major problem with the path header is that it breaks the currently
> defined semantics of the register message.  in the rfc and in the bis,
> register message has been defined for establishing a binding in the
> location service and for no other purpose. according to the 
> current sip
> specifications, you only need to send a register request if 
> you want to
> be reached.  if you only want to reach others, you don't need to send
> the register message.  all that text of the rfc and bis would 
> need to be
> changed if we would adopt the proposed path response as part of sip.

The semantics of REGISTER are so broken and incongruous to the rest of
SIP this can't go anyway towards being an argument. A proper
provisioning mechanism is what's required, and with the beauty of
hindsight I guess most people would agree.

James

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 19:48:25 +0200

> hindsight I guess most people would agree.

this is the first time i hear this kind of comment and very late in the
bis process. i have almost two year expirience of running sip based
services here and haven't found any major problems with the register
request.

-- juha