Right, so that's one possible direction to go for INFO as well: don't mandate any model in the base spec. Keep it simple. Let the packages do their own dirty work, under review. -hadriel
> -----Original Message----- > From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 8:40 AM > To: Hadriel Kaplan; Eric Burger; Anders Kristensen > Cc: SIP List > Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO Framework - one pakage per INFO > > I don't remember any history of this, but would contend that the way RFC > 3903 text is written in regards to bodies in responses is tantamount to > saying "bodies in responses is for further study". It is basically > trying to say, if in implementing this you receive a body in a response, > then don't start failing things at the SIP transaction level. > > And remember, this requires an event package to define the usage, and > you need RFCs to define event packages, so I suspect any expert review > or above would take a very deep look at any such definition. > > Keith _______________________________________________ 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
