INFO is rejected. You probably shouldn't have any application state semantics that would need SIP to transport an error. QED ------Original Message------ From: Anders Kristensen To: Eric Burger Cc: IETF SIP List Subject: Re: [Sip] Proposal for multiple INFO bodies in an INFO Sent: Oct 30, 2008 9:56 PM
Eric Burger wrote: ... > > I would also offer that since INFO does not change SIP state, which > means there is not even a concept of a message succeeding but the INFO > body doing something that "fails", the objection that it would be hard > for a UA to report on one body "failing" with another body "succeeding" > is a non-issue. Yes, this does mean that you cannot use INFO to tunnel > IP. See RFC 3252 for more on this. I do not see this as a problem. Not sure I follow this. If an INFO carries bodies for info packages A and B and the one for A is fine but the one for B is malformed, then is the INFO rejected or not? Thanks, Anders -- Eric Burger Sent from my mobile device; sorry if terse. All mobile users need lemonade. See <http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade> for more information. _______________________________________________ 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
