<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Olle E. Johansson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:oej@edvina.net" target="_blank">oej@edvina.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Mark,<br>
I'm sorry to have disturbed your process by pointing at your errors.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>I don't think it was a disturbance to anyone's process to have useful input provided. As an aside, to us, "your process" is the Asterisk project's process. Like anyone, we make mistakes from time to time. But we do our best to follow what we ask others to follow. Commenting on a commit after a review has always been viewed as perfectly acceptable and a normal part of development. No one minds that.</div>
<div><br></div><div>After reading your e-mail and the RFCs, I don't have a clear understanding either of all of the issues surrounding usage of a SIPS URI instead of a SIP URI with TLS as transport. The fact that SIPS does not equate to "best-effort" TLS obviously has implications if hops in the middle don't support TLS (you either think you're secure but aren't, or your calls fail, or... something else perhaps?). What I don't have a clear understanding of is why we should prefer SIP with TLS as the transport over SIPS. Couldn't a user make the argument that they really don't want "best-effort" - that is, if they asked for secure communication, they want secure communication along the entire path? What explicit pitfalls are we running into by using SIPS in the URI in the contact header?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Or I could be misreading what section 3.1.3 is referring to; but that's why Mark asked for some clarification.</div><div><br></div><div>And I'm sorry, but I agree with Mark: "it's much more and pretty bad" doesn't tell me what all we've just fallen into.</div>
<div></div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Please ignore my remarks and go on - I'm sure you'll sort it out yourself or that PJsip will fix it somehow.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Mark did not imply that PJSIP will fix our problems for us. He stated that "<span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">The fact that other headers are impacted is actually outside of our concern and should be handled by PJSIP." PJSIP will already construct certain headers - such as Via or Record-Route - based on the information you provide it - unlike the Contact header in this commit, which has to be constructed before you pass it down to the PJSIP layer for processing. It is, however, our decision as to what gets fed into PJSIP to choose the correct options - things like what transport is attempted; whether or not we use SIP or SIPS; and other kinds of information. If we pass it the correct information, it should "do the right thing". But no one is stating that we're punting on responsibility. If PJSIP didn't handle the Contact header passed to it correctly and - for example, didn't update the Via header appropriately - then that's a bug we'll fix and push upstream.</span><br>
</div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">Your input is welcome in the process at any point. Like all good citizens in an open source community, we all have to communicate. This applies to anyone participating in the Asterisk project - be they at Digium or outside it. </font><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">While that certainly means raising issues when things are wrong, it also means providing explanations when someone asks for it, and preferably not criticizing</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> the work someone has done without explaining the errors they've made.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div style>Hope you have a good weekend as well -</div><div><br></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Matt</span></div><div><br></div></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">
<div>Matthew Jordan<br></div><div>Digium, Inc. | Engineering Manager</div><div>445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA</div><div>Check us out at: <a href="http://digium.com" target="_blank">http://digium.com</a> & <a href="http://asterisk.org" target="_blank">http://asterisk.org</a></div>
</div>
</div></div>