Christer Holmberg wrote:
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.
Well, with REFER sipfrag is typically used to carry only the response
code. Sending more is optional. If something is to be sent then I think
this is a good mechanism for doing so. I think the question would be
whether sending the sipfrag with at least the reason is MUST, SHOULD, or
MAY.
OTOH, I thought this was removed from the draft because some people
thought this smacked too much of solving the HERFP problem when it
didn't really do the job fully. Has anything changed?
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
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
