Hi, >>The agreement in Dublin was to not say anything about sipfrag. But, I >>am ok with putting it back, especially if people want more use-cases. >>I guess it could be optional for the UAC to inidicate support of >>sipfrag. > >It doesn't have to be sipfrag. Just the plain value of the error response code would work too. Whatever is easier.
Maybe the Reason header could be used? Or a new parameter. I agree that sipfrag is a little too "heavy" for sending a response code. Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ 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
