Hi, >>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).
Correct, but with multipart I meant both mixed and alternative. >>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. Again, I am not in a position to disagree with you ,but is that harmfulness documented somewhere? Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ 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
