Hadriel Kaplan wrote: >> -----Original Message----- From: Christer Holmberg >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 30, >> 2008 4:58 PM >> >> Sounds ok. But, doesn't the Info-Package header syntax still have >> to allow the piggy-backer to: 1) List multiple info packages 2) For >> each listed info package, provide the cid > > Nope. We've already said we're going to not bother doing multiple > packages. (or at least I think people have agreed with that, I hope) > So the next question was on multiple body-parts. Since INVITE, > UPDATE, PRACK, SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY, MESSAGE, and legacy INFO, can all > carry bodies and not one of them defined a CID mechanism for the body > part that was specific to their message method context, we shouldn't > need to for INFO either.
No, I think this means we messed up every one of those methods when we didn't address the multiple-body problem earlier. The reason it isn't exploding yet is that the specifications are ahead of the implementations; when the implementations catch up with the broken specs, we'll have failures of biblical proportion. Sometimes we can demux on body-type. This is obviously not a universal solution. We really need a generic solution that works for all methods, not just INFO. -- Dean _______________________________________________ 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
