Re: Comment on DERIVE and B2BUAs
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
The original draft for INFO (like most from that time) were pretty loosely worded. That is part of the trouble. So its been necessary to interpret intent. It seems clear that the original definition was intended to convey information that was closely tied to the session. Without a session that doesn't make sense. The current effort to clarify this (the info package work submitted by Eric Burger, and subject to vigorous debate recently) will certainly nail it down further. That is proposing to *negotiate* the packages to be delivered, and the negotiation takes place within the invite dialog usage. (Much like offer/answer.) This ties INFO more closely to the session. If you have an application for INFO outside of the invite dialog usage, then you could submit a draft proposing that. I wouldn't recommend doing so. It wouldn't be well received. Thanks, Paul Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > El Sábado, 1 de Noviembre de 2008, Paul Kyzivat escribió: >> See RFC 5057. > > I promise I'll read it entirely, but in a fast read I don't find what you > could suggest, just considerations about dialog forming. > Could you please point to me what exactly you mean? Perhaps that INFO > shouldn't be used as an initial request? > > Thanks a lot. > > _______________________________________________ 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