Hi, I don't think it would harm to allow the headers in pretty much any response - in case we come up with use-cases (like the one you just presented) in future where it is needed.
Regards, Christer > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Procter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 29. marraskuuta 2007 16:28 > To: Hadriel Kaplan; Adam Roach > Cc: [email protected]; Christer Holmberg > Subject: RE: [Sip] FW: I-D Action:draft-kaplan-sip-info-events-00.txt > > Just to pick up on one of the comments: > > Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > From: Adam Roach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Recv-Event 18x - - - o o - - > >> I think you mean "1xx", not "18x" > > > > Yup. > > Can this be extended to permit Send-Event and Recv-Event to > be optional in non-2xx final responses too? The reason is > simple: OPTIONS can be rejected with a 486 simply because the > UA is on a call. Under those circumstances, I think it would > still be useful to know what the UA supports. (There are > probably other responses where it would be useful - I am > simply trying to make the point, rather than list all > relevant responses at this stage.) > > I know that a proxy consolidating responses from a forked > OPTIONS might seem to make this less useful, but an OPTIONS > sent to a gruu wouldn't suffer from this problem, and so > would remain useful. > > Regards, > > Michael > _______________________________________________ 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
