Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
I don't think there's much value in documenting the labeling part without negotiation. One of the main issues right now is you don't know which INFO mechanisms the far end wants/needs/supports. There isn't really much issue with discerning what the INFO you received was for once you got it, 'cause the content-type has been unambiguous so far for all of the current usages I think (or majority thereof). It was the potential for content-type ambiguity in the future that was one of the concerns of INFO, but the real driver for me at least is the "what does the other end want/expect" problem.
That is exactly the use-case that I am concerned with. I've seen more than one 'application/xml' to date, and whilst I have so far been able to disambiguate those based on content analysis, I fear more are on the way. But on reflection, I suppose that vendors unwilling to declare their content more precisely are unlikely to add a new header instead.
I'm all for making the "negotiation" part as trivial and KISS as possible - I started with what I thought was trivial, but people wanted to pile onto it to cover 3PCC and other scenarios. I'm cool with going back to simple as a better-than-nothing approach. :)
I'll leave it in your capable hands then! Regards, Michael _______________________________________________ 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
