Hi, I think it is clearly said that INFO is not to be used to directly modify the SIP session, so unless there is an application on top of the SIP session that understands this information it would simply be rejected.
Regards, Christer > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Roach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22. heinäkuuta 2007 17:19 > To: Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF) > Cc: Eric Burger; IETF SIP > Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO and Content Negotiation > > To rephrase what Eric is saying here in base principles: > _inferring_ what can be done with INFO by examining supported > content types is a "Do What I Mean" mechanism (as opposed to > a "Do What I Say" mechanism). "Do What I Mean" is a > well-known recipe for interoperability failure. (For a well > constructed discussion of this, see Jonathan's service > indication draft). > > This is, for example, why we have an "Event" header field in > RFC 3265 instead of simply inferring the event package from > MIME type. (In fact, this is why I started the draft that > became 3265 in the first place -- with the dual uses of PINT > and presence threatening to take the SUBSCRIBE method down > the path that INFO unfortunately ended up taking, an > intervention was necessary). > > To re-cast Eric's example from a slightly different angle: > imagine that a desired usage of INFO most naturally used > application/sdp as its payload. How would one indicate > support for such a usage? > > /a > > Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF) wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I still don't get it, but let's take it face-to-face at > some point :) > > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Eric Burger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: 22. heinäkuuta 2007 10:14 > >> To: Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF); IETF SIP > >> Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO and Content Negotiation > >> > >> That is the point - people have been saying, "I can > negotiate INFO by > >> using Content-Type." This is a tiny example where using > Content-Type > >> to negotiate "INFO Packages" falls apart. > >> > >> > >> On 7/22/07 3:10 AM, "Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)" > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Why would I be expecting KPML, if I have only indicated > >>> > >> that I support > >> > >>> DTMF-over-INFO? > >>> > >>> If I was to expect KPML, I would first need to establish a > >>> subscription for KPML (or, in our "controlled network", the > >>> subscription would be established by default, and I would > >>> > >> know you are going to send KPML). > >> > >>> 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
