Re: Multiple body-parts in one INFO
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
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