> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 10:47 > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > Cc: IETF SIP List > Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-sips-05: 480 vs. 418 > > I don't know what you mean about Option 1 being opaque to > automata. It seems to me it provides comparable info to > Option 2, giving that the UAC knows what it used in the request.
It means an Automata can not "upgrade" or "downgrade" automatically with OPTION 1, as the indication is not a "hard" indication. It is a Warning text that is not standardized, and will vary by language, operators, region, etc. Best it can do is "record" the Warning text. That can be done automatically of course. _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
