Hi, If there is no technical reason I don't see why we again shall make a restriction which we later may "suffer" from.
Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: Eric Burger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 3:39 PM To: Christer Holmberg Cc: SIP List Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO Framework - one pakage per INFO It was a consensus thing, not a technical thing :-) On Nov 20, 2008, at 8:19 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: > > Hi, > > I probably missed it, but what is the justficiation for only one Info > Package body per INFO request? > > Didn't we discuss it earlier, and came to the conclusion that it > wouldn't add any extra complexity? > > ...especially, as you say, one MUST support multipart anyway. > > Regards, > > Christer > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Eric Burger > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 2:44 AM > To: SIP List > Subject: [Sip] INFO Framework > > Consensus stuff: > > 1. Remove Send-Info. It takes away a bunch of race conditions. The > value of having it is theoretical. We can always add it in later, so > we will keep the header name "Recv-Info". > > 2. Remove Contact: header from INFO table > > 3. Remove Recv-Info from INFO table > > 4. Mention what happens when you forget the Recv-Info header when you > refresh a dialog > > 5. Only one Info Package body in the INFO method request. However, > implementations MUST support multipart, per RFC 3261 as updated by > body-handling. > > If you disagree with these items, squeak now. Send us an INFO. _______________________________________________ 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
