At 12:48 AM 12/31/2002 -0500, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
I think the key point is that there is a difference between transport protocol semantic and application semantic. The transport protocol semantic expressed in INFO is "Here is some data that will be used by the application. It is not important to the transport protocol, except that the transport protocol is expected to deliver it reliably". INFO says NOTHING about the APPLICATION level semantic -- that's up to what goes IN the INFO payloads. The question is -- do we try to rigidly define application-level semantics here? Do we define that there ARE no such applications possible? Or do we design a framework by which application-level semantics can be expressed outside of the protocol definition?Orit Levin wrote:Huh?The big huge difference I have been trying to point out is that EVENTS DEFINES SEMANTICS, whereas INFO doesnt. MIME provides semantics and syntax that are independent of the type. SIP events provides semantics and syntax that are independent of the package. INFO provides nothing.INFO provides "minimal" but very important semantics: asynchronous data reliably follows the established SIP path.
Every new SIP method is reliable, it inherits the SIP transaction state machine for non-invite. Follows the established path? Every in-dialog method would have this property, it is method independent. Asynchronous? You can send any method at any time.
Thus, nothing you have pointed out above is different between INFO and any other new method we might introduce.