Subject: Re: [sipcore] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme-03.txt - the qop issue

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 06:46:24 +0000

Hi,

I earlier commented that one must not assume that the remote peer will use the "qop" parameter, if the peer has not implemented the draft. We should point that out.

As an alternative, we could have a generic backward compatibility statement somewhere, saying something like:

"As described in RFC7616, the procedures are generally backward compatible with RFC2617. However, an endpoint MUST take into account that the remote peer might not have implemented this specification and is therefore following the procedures in RFC2617. That can e.g., result in not providing some information elements that are mandatory in RFC7616 but optional in RFC2617. An example of such information element is the "qop" parameter."

Regards,

Christer