I also tend to prefer to view SDP as being part of the message rather than an entity on its own. It adds details to the SIP/BICC/MEGACO part rather than use it as a transport. I sent in the selected bytes patch because in order to support SIP interop problems because I need an easy way for myself and others to extract the full details of a SIP message.
sipfrag is another SIP message type that can have an SDP body. sipfrag bodies consist of selected lines from other SIP packets, and this can (in theory) include an SDP body. I wouldn't want to put sipfrag at the top level, it has no context without the SIP headers. In a packet that consisted of SIP/sipfrag/SDP I'd *definitely* want everything under the SIP tree. Martin On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:46:23AM +0100, Anders Broman (AL/EAB) wrote: > My reasoning is that SDP is part of the SIP/BICC(not ISUP ):)/MEGACO > message and not an entity of it's own. What do you mean by "not en entity of it's own"? There's a clear point where the SIP part stops and the SDP part begins. Where is the difference to - let's say IP and TCP? Ciao J�rg _______________________________________________ Ethereal-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev
