Re: INFO Framework - one pakage per INFO
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dean Willis wrote: > DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > >> INFO must carry a response. > > Putting application-level data into an INFO response is problematic as > this may make the INFO body larger than the transport package size, and > we have no way to reject large responses. > > This is exactly why we stalemated on diagnostic responses. > > Given the characteristics of SIP-as-transport, the only reasonable thing > to do (beside change SIP) is to require all application-layer responses > use SIP requests in the return direction onstead of piggybacking on the > SIP response. The SIP response can, in general, tells us only about the > handling of the request's delivery at a SIP level, not an application level. Then I guess we had better stop passing SDP in responses. Why is it that responses can have a body??? 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