[sr-dev] TLS: Sip-Routers adds a Record-Route with "sip" scheme rather than "sips"

[Martin Hoffmann]

Klaus Darilion wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 05.07.2011 19:04, schrieb Iñaki Baz Castillo:
> > 2011/7/5 Jan Janak <jan at ryngle.com>:
> >> > So what is the difference then? How is a Route header with sips scheme
> >> > different from a Route header with the transport=tls parameter? Is the
> >> > proxy server supposed to treat Route headers with sips differently
> >> > than Route headers with sip;transport=tls?
> > No, the only difference is that transport=tls is deprecated and
> > """"maybe"""" some devices don't understand ;transport=tls.
> 
> I just wonder why it is deprecated at all?

I wonder why it exists at all in the standard. Ole's quote shows that it
only ever showed up in an RFC as deprecated. Why not just leave it out?
There is far too many people who defer the workings of a protocol from
reading the ABNF only and don't bother with the pesky prose.

> IIRC "sips:" does not mandate
> any protocol, just that encryption must be used. Thus, plain TCP over
> IPsec would also fulfill "sips:", but for sure is different than TLS+TCP.

3261 specifically mentions TLS over TCP a couple of times. Before SCTP
and DTLS came along, sips meant TLS, stat.

Regards,
Martin