[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 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.

-- 
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