Re: VS: SIPit21: BNF future-proofing problem?

Christer Holmberg wrote:
> My opinion is that people who only implement based on
examples, without reading the actual protocol specification,
have themselves to blame - and they are going to run into
problems sooner or later, no matter how correct the exmaples
are. 
>
> If people are too lazy to read 3261 I don't think there
is anything IETF can do - or even should spend time on
doing.
I agree, but if you don't care about the first example of
the most basic 
example of an RFC being broken and not fixed, you should not
be 
surprised if interoperability problems occur
with new implementations.. This was the topic of
interoperability 
workshop: new implementors seem to all fall in the same
"traps".
I just wanted to outline that "small fix" is not
synonym of "non-essential".

+



_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip

This is how it should be:
 
1. I implement RFC3261 (and whatever extensions needed)
 
2. I start to test, and I realize that the outcome is not
according to the example.
 
3. I send an e-mail to some SIP list, get a reply that there
is a bug in the example and that it was good that I found
it, and that it will be reported in some bugzilla.
 
4. I interop with other people who have done the same
 
Of course it is bad if there are bugs in an RFC, but my
point is that fixing an example call flow is probably not
going to help interoperability very much in the long run, if
people don't read the protocol spec...
 
Regards,
 
Christer
 
 
 
 

________________________________

From: Thomas Froment [mailto:Thomas.Fromentalcatel-lucent.fr]
Sent: Thu 13/12/2007 14:16
To: Christer Holmberg
Cc: sipietf.org
Subject: Re: VS: [Sip] SIPit21: BNF future-proofing
problem?



Christer Holmberg wrote:
> My opinion is that people who only implement based on
examples, without reading the actual protocol specification,
have themselves to blame - and they are going to run into
problems sooner or later, no matter how correct the exmaples
are.
>
> If people are too lazy to read 3261 I don't think there
is anything IETF can do - or even should spend time on
doing.
I agree, but if you don't care about the first example of
the most basic
example of an RFC being broken and not fixed, you should not
be
surprised if interoperability problems occur
with new implementations.. This was the topic of
interoperability
workshop: new implementors seem to all fall in the same
"traps".
I just wanted to outline that "small fix" is not
synonym of "non-essential".

+



_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip




_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip