20 Nov
2004
20 Nov
'04
4:34 p.m.
On Wednesday 17 November 2004 18:42, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
At 10:13 PM 11/16/2004, Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
Yes that is true. But up to now there is no single test in STFT implemented
which is not 100% covered by the RFC.
Sorry but I do not agree to implement a RFC
compliance test which is IMHO
not covered by the RFC (yet).
Scope of SFTF is actually not spell-checking RFC compliance but more
general, interoperability. See
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-torture-tests-04.txt
for what it may be. The receiver should be liberal and if they don't
understand something, they should skip it (as opposed to denying a
request).
I know it :-)
Only a very small subset of this draft is implemented in SFTF. And for every
of these implemented tests it is IMO absolutely clear from the RFC how the UA
should react. This is not the case for spaces at the end of the MF header or
any header in general.
We can discuss to add a new section of optional tests which should be passed
to improve interoperability, but which are not mandatory because they are not
(yet) covered by a RFC. But I'll not make such a dession on my own.
Greetings
Nils