[asterisk-dev] [asterisk-commits] oej: branch oej/darjeeling-prack-1.8 r369555 - /team/oej/darjeeling-prack-1.8/

[Kevin P. Fleming]

On 07/05/2012 02:29 PM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>
> 5 jul 2012 kl. 20:42 skrev Kevin P. Fleming:
>
>> On 07/05/2012 01:01 PM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>>
>>> Using an RFC name would be stupid, as they change. Too many people are stuck with "RFC2833".
>>
>> RFC numbers don't change, but RFCs get obsoleted by new versions. Generally, this only happens when there are substantive differences in the protocol/mechanism/profile/etc. that they define. In the case you cite, RFC4733 has obsoleted RFC2833, but it's also different in some ways, and existing implementations may not be automatically RFC4733 compliant just because they were RFC2833 compliant.
>>
>> If a new RFC appears that obsoletes RFC3262, it will likely also change the mechanism, and in that case, the Asterisk code would need to be changed to become compliant with the new RFC, and users would need to be given configuration option(s) to control the new and old behaviors. I don't find this 'stupid' at all, but I'm certainly open to other suggestions if anyone has any.
>>
> The unique thing with RFC3292 is the PRACK method. That's why I named the option PRACK.
>
> Easier to explain, teach and remember.

The '100rel' option tag is also unique, and in my opinion is more 
relevant, because that's what appears in the Supported and Require 
headers (not PRACK), so that's really the 'feature' being added here. I 
didn't suggest that the config option be named '100rel', though because 
it's too arcane and is not at all descriptive.

Since this code is not submitted for inclusion, though, this is all 
moot. We can revisit this discussion if that day comes.

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
Jabber: kfleming at digium.com | SIP: kpfleming at digium.com | Skype: kpfleming
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org