The current text states that if a UA does not support receipt of any
Info Packages, it MUST drop the Info-Recv header. Likewise, if the UA
does not support sending any Info Packages, as would be the case if a
UAS does not support any of the Info Packages offered by the UAC, it
MUST drop the Info-Send header.
As an extreme example, if a UAS does not want to send any Info
Packages to a UAC and simultaneously the UAS does not support any of
the Info Packages offered by the UAC, the UAS will have neither an
Info-Send nor an Info-Recv header. In this case, the UAC cannot
disambiguate between a legacy UAS and an Info Package-aware UAS that
simply does not want to receive INFO messages.
Is this a problem? On the one hand, one could argue a UAS that does
not support any INFO packages may still support proprietary INFO
packages or the legacy, standards track INFO usages. On the other
hand, one could argue a UAS that supports INFO packages yet
_______________________________________________
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
