Wouldn't it be much simplier to define a generic mime, e.g. application/info-package, and then each info package only needs to define the Info-Package header value for that particular package? Regards, Christer
________________________________ From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 23/10/2008 16:20 To: Christer Holmberg Cc: SIP IETF; eric burger Subject: Re: draft-ietf-sip-info-events-00: Content-Type vs Info-Package [was RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-info-events-00: multiple packages per INFO] Christer Holmberg wrote: > Hi, > >> Its not a matter of Info-Package *vs* Content-Type - Its Info-Package >> *plus* Content-Type. Previously there was an assumption that C-T would > uniquely distinguish the "package". Read what Eric wrote about why that > is a bad assumption. > > Fine. > > But, what will the Content-Type value be, then? We need a value, and the > draft doesn't specify one. > > OR, shall each info package define the Content-Type value, in addition > to the package name itself??? 7.2.4. INFO Bodies Each Info Package MUST define what type or types of bodies are expected in INFO requests. Such packages MUST specify or cite detailed specifications for the syntax and semantics associated with such a body. Info Packages also MUST define a default MIME type if the "Accept" header fails to define any MIME types in the INVITE request. _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
