Re: [Sip] INFO considered harmful

[Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>]

Jonathan Rosenberg writes:
 > 
 > 
 > Michael Thomas wrote:
 > > Jonathan Rosenberg writes:
 > >  > There is a huge difference that you are ignorning.
 > >  > 
 > >  > The semantics of INVITE are well defined. SIP-guidelines says bodies 
 > >  > can't change that basic semantic. Same with UPDATE.
 > >  > 
 > >  > INFO has no defined semantic. Thus, it is not currently a violation of 
 > >  > the spec (and indeed, seemingly encouraged by it) to place all kinds of 
 > >  > stuff in it. THis is why we HAVE seen abuse of INFO, but not INVITE or 
 > >  > UPDATE.
 > > 
 > >   So... s/INFO/X-SIPPING and be done with it?
 > 
 > Sorry for being dense, but I don't follow what you mean here.
 > 
 > If you are asking whether I am suggesting that people define their stuff 
 > as new methods, then yes, that is what I am suggesting.

Sorry for being too flippant, but if we're going
to have a junk heap for undefined semantics, some
truth in advertising might be in order. Hence X-.

	 Mike
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip