> -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Roach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:50 PM > To: Stucker, Brian (RICH1:AR00) > Cc: Hadriel Kaplan; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO > > On 9/26/07 5:35 PM, Brian Stucker wrote: > > I think the key point being made on the other side is that there's > > nothing special about an event package. It is an identifier that > > disambiguates the NOTIFY. In some cases other header values could > > serve the same purpose (i.e. content-type w/ DTMF). > > > > But that's a point solution that puts a band-aid on INFO for > precisely one use case and leaves it broken for others. It > doesn't scale to other uses for INFO. > > That points to really only two sane approaches: either (a) > come up with an unambiguous differentiator for various INFO > usages (in the style of event packages), or (b) grandfather > current approaches (band-aids and > all) and forbid any other applications of INFO. > > Eric's document basically takes the second approach, > grandfathering all uses of INFO that are currently published > in an RFC or an active internet-draft, and forbidding any > others. The list is not long; I'll replicate it here: > > 1. RFC 3372 > > You want more than that, you really need packages.
Expand that list to include application/dtmf and I think you'll largely end the debate. > > /a > _______________________________________________ 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
