Re: INFO Framework - one pakage per INFO

On Dec 5, 2008, at 1:24 AM, Elwell, John wrote:

> I think the 488 precedent was unfortunate. If you send SDP offer in a
> reliable provisional response or a 2xx response, 488 isn't available  
> to
> you (except I suppose you could put a Reason header in the PRACK or  
> ACK
> request, but I don't really want to go there).

Which is why the SDP response should have been in a request sent back  
from terminating UA to originating UA, and not in an answer. But that  
cat and most of its relatives are out of the bag, at least for SIP  
2.0. Note for posterity: you can't fix a broken leg with a band-aid  
well enough for running on, but if you add enough band-aids, you just  
might make a squishy-sticky prosthetic that lets you limp along.

> So I don't think we need we need a way of indicating in an INFO  
> response
> problems with body content in the request.  Let the application send  
> an
> INFO request in the reverse direction.

I concur. It might be reasonable for the SIP stack to send a 4xx  
response meaning "I have no idea what to do with this INFO body; I  
either don't understand it, or I have no application to hand it to".  
Beyond that, it just isn't SIP's job to express application semantics  
in a response code.

--
Dean
_______________________________________________
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