Why exactly do we require these additional (Answer-Mode and Priv-Answer-Mode) headers? Couldn't this have been done by extending the Request-Disposition header as defined in RFC3841 (which this draft references..). Are there any specific advantages of having new headers rather than additional directives for Request-Disposition?
-Sumit "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw -----Original Message----- From: Steve Langstaff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:20 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-answermode-06.txt At the last call of this document I raised the following issues: SRL> Section 4.3.2 states: SRL> SRL> The Answer-Mode and Priv-Answer-Mode header fields have equivalent SRL> functions, except that Priv-Answer-Mode requests a higher level of SRL> privilege in granting the answering mode specified by the request. SRL> SRL> Would it not make sense to have a single header that performs both SRL> of these equivalent functions, using a parameter (e.g. 'high' or 'level=high') to distinguish between the two? SRL> SRL> This might have the following benefits: SRL> SRL> 1) The document would be smaller. SRL> 2) The implementation may be simpler. SRL> 3) If the need for more than just two levels of privilege were found in the future then this could be easily extended, rather than following the current pattern of needing another header, e.g. Really-High-Priv-Answer-Mode: My questions were answered by Dean, but I now notice the following in the current draft: "4.1. Procedures at User Agent Clients (UAC) 4.1.1. All Requests A UA supporting the Answer-Mode and Priv-Answer-Mode header fields SHOULD indicate its support by including an option tag of "answermode" in the Supported header field of all requests it sends." Other sections also mention this single option tag. Would it not make more sense to use two separate option tags, e.g. "answer-mode" and "priv-answer-mode"? That would seem to be more orthogonal to me if this scheme were to be open to extension in the future? _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
