Hi,
Would it be OK if the references (RFC3968 and RFC3969) which lists
currently IANA registered SIP headers(and URI parameters) are included
in hitchhikers' guide ? (even though it does not extend/modify the SIP
protocol.)
Regards,
Vasu
On 10/18/06, *Jonathan Rosenberg* <jdrosen at cisco.com
<mailto:jdrosen at cisco.com>> wrote:
THanks for the comments, and apologies for the slow response. See below.
Samir Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> 1) Shouldn't we have reference to the open bugs in this
guide in
> some form. Atleast a reference to bugzilla web site?
That is not within the scope of this document. There is ongoing
discussion on what to do with those bugs, no conclusion yet. But this
document serves only to enumerate the SIP specifications.
>
>
>
> 2) It refers the RFC 2976 for SIP INFO. Shouldn't it refer
the RFC
> 2833 there. We may be widening its scope to media too..
INFO is an existing normative extension to SIP and so it is referenced.
That doesn't mean we are proposing it be used for DTMF; it just means
its an extension. RFC 2833 is not a SIP extension, it is an RTP
extension. So it is not included.
-Jonathan R.
--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
jdrosen at cisco.com
<mailto:jdrosen at cisco.com> FAX: (973)
952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu
<mailto:sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu> for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org <mailto:sipping at ietf.org> for new developments
on the application of sip