In the hopes of making the discussion as short as possible in SIPPING:
This is what we have consensus on the list: 1. Change all occurrences of "dialog mumble" with "dialog parameters" 2. Fix Table 1 to remove archaic references to 2543 3. Clarify language for overlapping INFOs and the "nil" package Open issues:We all agree on what the text says for the INVITE, UPDATE, and ACK methods, as well as the 101-299 (stuff counts) and 300-699 (something is broken, so it does not matter) response codes.
It is probably sensible to exclude 100 from Recv-Info processing. Work for you?
What about PRACK/PRACK 2xx? My vote is they count like everything else. What about you?
Likewise, what about REFER/REFER 2xx? My vote here is INFO packages would be nonsensical during a refer, but perhaps you have a use case? If so, they work like everything else.
The current text is pretty adamant that a missing Recv-Info means you do not (want to) understand Info Packages. If you start with a Recv- Info and you later drop the Recv-Info header, all bets are off. Are you happy with that? Since we do have Recv-Info: nil, we do have the opportunity to say we only change the Info Package set if a Recv-Info header is present. What do you think?
Responses to the list now will hopefully make the discussion go swiftly.Likewise, if I have missed something, please bring it up now, NOT at the meeting. Recall this draft has finished WGLC.
See you in SF, if you will be in SF; on Jabber if you will be remote; or via e-mail if you will be asynchronous.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ 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
