Re: [Sip] INFO and what to do about it?

["Michael Procter" <michael at procter.org.uk>]

Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> I don't think there's much value in documenting the labeling part
> without negotiation.  One of the main issues right now is you don't
> know which INFO mechanisms the far end wants/needs/supports.  There
> isn't really much issue with discerning what the INFO you received was
> for once you got it, 'cause the content-type has been unambiguous so
> far for all of the current usages I think (or majority thereof).  It
> was the potential for content-type ambiguity in the future that was
> one of the concerns of INFO, but the real driver for me at least is
> the "what does the other end want/expect" problem.

That is exactly the use-case that I am concerned with.  I've seen more
than one 'application/xml' to date, and whilst I have so far been able
to disambiguate those based on content analysis, I fear more are on the
way.

But on reflection, I suppose that vendors unwilling to declare their
content more precisely are unlikely to add a new header instead.

> I'm all for making the "negotiation" part as trivial and KISS as
> possible - I started with what I thought was trivial, but people
> wanted
> to pile onto it to cover 3PCC and other scenarios.  I'm cool with
> going
> back to simple as a better-than-nothing approach. :)

I'll leave it in your capable hands then!

Regards,

Michael

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