Subject: Re: [SIP] missing extension placeholders

From: Sean Olson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 09:03:37 -0500 (CDT)

> >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
> 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...).

The transport and user parameters don't need to be added to the tel: URI
so this should be ok.

sean
--
Sean Olson <[email-masked]>

> -- 
> 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 --|
>  

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