At 09:02 AM 5/24/2007, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
Elwell, John wrote:
Gonzalo,
Concerning the handling parameter, there is no normative statement in
RFC 3261 mandating that this be supported, as far as I can see. The only
normative language seems to be "If the handling parameter is missing,
the value "required" SHOULD be assumed." There is no normative statement
concerning what to do if it is present. Therefore any UA that inserts
handling=optional should not rely on this being taken account of by the
peer UA.
Things are a bit messed up wrt this header:
- 3261 section 20.11 says: "This SIP header field extends the MIME
Content-Type (RFC 2183 [18])." But RFC 2183 is about
Content-Disposition, so there is clearly a typo here.
- From reading that section you might think that 3261 invented the
handling parameter. It isn't defined in 2183, but it is defined
in 3204 which was published prior to 3261. That does have normative
statements about how the parameter is to be processed. So 3261
should have referenced that.
I don't know how we are going to dig ourselves out of this hole.
how about write a quite Update to 3261 pointing to 3204 instead of
2183. Then obsoleting this new Update with Gonzalo's ID (that clears
the handling parameter up)...
just an (unusual) thought (to a non-straightforward problem)
I suppose the usual answer is a new option tag.
Paul
John
_______________________________________________
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
