Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. It's perfectly consistent with the intent of what Multipart/alternative is supposed to mean.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 01:13 > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > Cc: Dan Wing; Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF); > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip] Support for Multipart/MIME > > Hi, > > > Section 6 would be OK, but now that SDPng is gone, it's irrelevant. > > I have seen a few statements like this on the list lately. > SIP intends to be, by design, session-description-format > agnostic. Therefore, we need a mechanism that allows > endpoints to try and use different session-description > formats even if SDPng is dead. > > Experimenting with new session-description formats is part of > the innovation process we want to have in SIP. > > In short, I do not think such a mechanism is irrelevant only > because SDPng did not succeed. We still need such a mechanism. > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > _______________________________________________ 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
