> >SDP Capabilities Negotiation does that, too -- and far better > >than multipart/alternative. > > I haven't seen any comparision between the mechanisms, so I can't > comment on the "far better" statement at this point.
Ok. I'll let Flemming or one of the other people deep into the SDP capability negotiation comment on the virtues of it versus multipart/alternative with several different SDP parts. > But, in order to do the same thing with SDP CapNeg, I assume it does > require the remote terminal to actually support SDP CapNeg? > > I agree that many terminals don't support multipart today, but wasn't > the initial issue of this thread that we want to mandate the > support of multipart (at least multipart/mixed)? Yes. But multipart/mixed isn't useful selecting the 'best' SDP; it's useful for throwing a bunch of different content types into one SIP body (SDP and location, for example). > Also, my initial intention was not to compare > multipart/alternative with > SDP CapNeg, but to give an example what multipart/alternative could be > used for. I have become convinced, through my efforts with RTPSEC, that multipart/alternative is harmful if it contains multiple SDP parts. So if there is something other than SDP that multipart/alternative might help with -- and there very well could be -- throw it out for discussion. -d _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.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
