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

[Eric Burger]

Where I am coming from:

*EVERY* MAY, SHOULD, RECOMMENDED, or other wiggle-word is begging for  
non-interoperability.

I would offer the document says, "MUST TCP" <period>.

Saying "MUST TCP and MAY UDP" is the same as saying, "do whatever you  
want, we don't care."

I would offer a difference between a SIPconnect spec and an IETF spec  
is WE CARE.

*WHAT* would a *SIPconnect* device or service *DO* with UDP?  Connect  
a lightbulb to the PSTN? (joking here)


On May 17, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Peter Dunkley wrote:

> 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
>>