|
Yes exactly. My idea was to essentially align it with
how Event-packages are syntactically and semantically done for SUB/NOT/PUB. They’re different namespaces, but essentially
“Info-Package:” is INFO’s version of “Event:”. -hadriel From:
sip-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ok,
Before
you reply to my other e-mail related to INFO and multipart, please read this
proposal first: 1.
We only allow a single info package per INFO message (I know that I am the main
reason that we are still discussing this, but I am willing to give in in order
to progress). 2.
The info package description defines the "context", ie what SIP
headers and/or body parts (including C-T values for those body parts) are
associated with a specific info package.
- NOTE: I assume that a SINGLE info package could specify the usage of MULTIPLE
body parts. Correct? 3.
If someone adds additional body parts (e.g. geoloc) to an INFO request, which
is outside the context of the specific info package for the INFO, it is outside
the scope of the info package description (and the info event specification) to
define how it is handled (in the case of geoloc, the geoloc description should
describe how it is used, and where it is used). 4.
We remove all text about CID from the the Info event draft. Whoever wants to
work with that - write a separate draft. I
believe this should at least be alligned with Hadriel's ideas, right?
Regards,
Christer
|
_______________________________________________ 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