Re: Multiple body-parts in one INFO

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.

Even if the value is hard coded on the sender side, the receiver will
still have to parse it - unless we define a hard coded value which
everyone must always use for info packages...

If we would allow multiple info packages per message I could see the use
of CID, but for a single info package I think a new c-d (or c-t) is much
more simple.

>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.

I agree with 1) :)

Regards,

Christer
_______________________________________________
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