Subject: [SIP] Content-Language header

From: "G. Clark Brown" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:23:24 -0500 (CDT)

draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis-00 refers to Content-Language header
in 6.46, but it does not seem to formally define this header.
Am I missing something?

Clark

_______________________________________________
SIP mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/sip

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 23:10:15 -0400

This is also present in rfc2543, and I believe it is an error resulting
from cut and paste from HTTP, which contains this paragraph verbatim.
There is no Content-Language header in SIP. This should be stricken from
rfc2543bis. Thanks for pointing it out.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg                       72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (732) 741-4778
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen         PHONE: (732) 741-7244
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 23:05:00 -0400

> rfc2543bis. Thanks for pointing it out.

Hmm. If we allow HTML or other objects in the SIP response, maybe
Content-Language doesn't seem all that far-fetched. At least that way, I
can automatically invoke the babelfish translator when I get the Spanish
web-IVR menu :-)

-- 
Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 00:57:31 -0400

> can automatically invoke the babelfish translator when I get the Spanish

Realistically, what are the applications for Content-Language? What
would a client do differently on receiving a Spanish version vs.
English? I see the value in Accept-Language, so that I get the right
thing back in the first place, but Content-Language?

-Jonathan R.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 02:33:59 -0400

> thing back in the first place, but Content-Language?
Automatic translation is about the only application I can think of. (In
HTTP, caching is probably another reason.) However, since the client is
perfectly free to ignore this field, I don't see why inheriting this
from HTTP is bad.