> In RFC3204, the QSIG or ISUP parts do not appear to have any > meaning without the SDP. Or do they? For example, is it > meaningful for me to send an INVITE that has only the QSIG > part (and no SDP)?
Sure: it's just a delayed offer answer. > > (And really, it's way too late to change 3204). > > Even if consensus were to be formed that there was a mistake? > Obviously no such consensus has been formed, but I would > like to have the discussion. I really don't think it's a mistake. > If we do consider it acceptable to change RFC3261's > requirements around MIME multipart support, I suggest it is > reasonable to analyze what we may have done wrong elsewhere > around MIME with SIP. > > > But, if I interpret your question in a broader sense, I guess, the > > question is "Do we need to say anything about > multipart/related?". I > > would extend it to parallel and digest... > > And external-body, and all the other parts. Yes, that is my > underlying question in light of Gonzalo's document and > Cullen's stated desire for the SIP community to document > multipart support. Yeah, I think it would be worthwile to talk about it, but not in the context of 3204. Frankly, what I think we should say is "RECOMMEND don't use unless some IETF RFC defines a use for them". _______________________________________________ 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
