Subject: [SIP] missing extension placeholders

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 00:44:24 -0400

Folks,

Unfortunately, rfc2543 has a few places where we really need extension
placeholders in the grammar, but they are not there. We would like to
add these in to the revised draft; please shout if you have a problem
with this. Some of the places:

1. transport parameter of SIP URL (we need sctp and tls plus who knows
what else..)
2. user parameter in SIP URL
3. Hide header
4. Content-Disposition

Thanks,
Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg                       72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen         PHONE: (732) 741-7244
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

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

---

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:31:41 +0100

>2. user parameter in SIP URL
To which I reply:
Absolutely fine, but how will this fit with TEL: urls?
If we expand the parameters of a SIP URL, then it would be nice if they
could be done in a way that still fits with the current RFC 2806 BNF
for future-extension (I doubt it will as 2806's BNF for this is 
pretty generic, but...).
-- 
All the best, Lawrence
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Lawrence Conroy,    | "These Opinions must be mine, 'cos if they    |
| Roke Manor Research |  were my Company's they'd pay me for them"    |
|- [email-masked]  ---+- Tel: +44 1794 833666  Fax: +44 1794 833434 --|