Subject: RE: [Simple] New I-D on IM transport

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 14:14:24 -0600

Slightly off topic, but just offering an explanation...

> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> The latest versions of SDP don't permit FQDNs in the c= line.
> I never did hear why this change was made. While it often may 
> be wise to
> avoid FQDNs in sdp, it seems pretty heavy handed to forbid them, since
> as you point out here there may be cases where they are useful.

The issue as I understand it is that people want to be able to
design endpoints that do not necessarily have DNS capabilities.
I'm not going to defend this design decision.

If sending of FQDNs is a MAY, then being able to receive them
is necessarily a MUST, lest we end up with a protocol that isn't
compatible with itself.

Conversely, if receiving of FQDNs is not a MUST (to appease the
no-DNS-in-my-endpoint minority), then sending of FQDNs is a 
MUST NOT.

Personally, I think this is a case of letting a very small portion
of the tip of the tail wag the whole elephant...

/a

_______________________________________________
simple mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 18:23:33 -0500

FYI - it was draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-02 and
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-03 where FQDNs in the c= line were illegal. In
the recently introduced draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-04 they are legal
again.

I have no visibility into why these changes were made.

	Paul