draft-ietf-sipping-mwi-02 section 5.2 contains the following opt-msg-headers definition.
opt-msg-headers = CRLF 1*(extension-header CRLF) The leading CRLF forces an empty line separator between the currently defined headers and future headers. Was this intentional? The current messsage-summary definition appears to imply strict ordering. Was this intentional? Nit: section 5.2 potentially contains an extra 's' in messsage-summary. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
