Yeah, reason header seems appropriate and would be good enough I think.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 14:50 > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); IETF SIP List > Subject: RE: How to make draft-ietf-sip-199 more useful > > > Hi, > > >>The agreement in Dublin was to not say anything about > sipfrag. But, I > >>am ok with putting it back, especially if people want more > use-cases. > >>I guess it could be optional for the UAC to inidicate support of > >>sipfrag. > > > >It doesn't have to be sipfrag. Just the plain value of the error > response code would work too. Whatever is easier. > > Maybe the Reason header could be used? Or a new parameter. I > agree that sipfrag is a little too "heavy" for sending a > response code. > > Regards, > > Christer > _______________________________________________ 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
