[SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (actually, SIPconnect does *not* change SIP)

[Peter Dunkley]

I agree.  This was my concern when I read MUST TCP, but only MAY UDP in 
the document.

I believe it is perfectly acceptable to say that SIPconnect compliant 
devices MUST support TCP, but there are a lot of UDP only devices in use 
within networks right now.  These need to keep working when connected 
with SIPconnect 1.1 compliant devices or no enterprise or service 
provider will have any interest in it.

To my mind that means that both TCP and UDP are MUSTs.  But, perhaps TCP 
should be RECOMMENDed as the default transport (with UDP as a fall-back)?

Regards,

Peter

Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On
>> Behalf Of Eric Burger
>> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 8:23 PM
>> To: techwg at sipforum.org
>> Subject: [SIPForum-techwg] TCP vs. UDP (actually, SIPconnect does *not*
>> change SIP)
>>
>> [as a participant]
>> UDP vs. TCP: SIPconnect can safely mandate *only* TCP.  If a device is
>> SIP (RFC 3261) compliant, it will support UDP, because RFC 3261
>> requires UDP support.  However, SIPconnect can feel free to MANDATE
>> TCP, as TCP support is a feature of SIP (RFC 3261).
>>     
>
> I think that train of thought will be lost on people.  If they read "MUST support TCP" in a sip-connect spec, and don't read "MUST also support UDP", they will NOT then also assume UDP simply because 3261 says so.  Obviously we can't and shouldn't point out every single requirement from 3261 we expect to be supported, but I think this one passes the smell test. :)
>
> -hadriel
>
> _______________________________________________
> techwg mailing list
> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> Unsubscribe or edit options at:  http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
>