[asterisk-dev] IAX internet draft (draft-guy-iax-00)

[Adrian Sietsma]

Tim Panton wrote:
> 
> Tricky, I guess it depends on how backwards compatible folks want the  
> RFC to be.
> My vote would be _not_ to include it, since it clutters up the  protocol 
> and isn't essential for
> proper (future) operation.
> 
> But then, I'm biased, I don't have a <1.2 asterisk anymore.
> 
IIRC, the +3ms hack was never documented in the various iax rfc's. It is 
_not_ part of the protocol, as i see it.

That said, a comprehensive spec should include a comment, along the lines of
"Note: some early implementations of this protocol could inadvertantly 
transpose full-frames spaced less than 3 ms apart."

Adrian