Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi,
- CID is too complex, and I think it will prevent some people from
moving from legacy to info packages.
- "Render" as the c-d is probably not 100% waterproof, since other body
types may also use it.
- I DO still strongly support a new c-d for the package body, but it
seems that others have issues with that.
How is CID "too complex"??? The id can be hard coded in most cases. So
its just some additional boiler plate to add into the request. And it
adds *1* extra header to the message. Anybody who can't manage that
shouldn't be sending SIP messages.
I do think that a *new* c-d would be clearer than reusing "render".
I guess my preferences (1-100, 1 best) are:
1) new c-d
2) cid
10) c-d "render"
100) single c-t for info-packages.
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
