On 7/14/11 10:13 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>
> 14 jul 2011 kl. 16.11 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
>
>> 2011/7/14 Olle E. Johansson<o...@edvina.net>:
>>>> I assume it's just a private/custom vendor specification working on
>>>> its own devices (and just that).
>>> No, many vendors use it. And if it was private, shouldn't they use x-talk
>>> and x-hold ?
>>
>> Using x- for private extensions is a pain, check:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-xdash-considered-harmful-01
>>
>> Basically, in HTTP world many extensions started as private extensions
>> with x-. Later when they become estandard the x- prefix is removed,
>> but many implementations must now allow both of them.
>>
> Agreed - so Broadsoft should really have registered these names. That's easy
> enough todo even if you don't want to work yourself through the RFC
> standardization process.
Yes. But then they would have had to define them as legitimate event
packages, conforming to 3265.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
