Re: AW: AW: Extension of conference procedures

Adam,

I agree with you that the interpretation as sip headers is
clear.

What is not so clear is which sip headers should be honored
in which 
contexts of use for the URL. Most of the uses (with the
exception of 
H-I) will not work unless the recipient actually
incorporates certain of 
the headers into the resulting request. But the UA is given
a lot of 
discretion regarding inclusion of headers and is warned that
some are 
dangerous. AFAIK there is no requirement that certain
headers be 
honored, in general or in conjunction with support of
particular options.

	Thanks,
	Paul

Adam Roach wrote:
> On 9/5/07 7:19 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2007, at 6:10 AM, DRAGE, Keith ((Keith))
wrote:
>>
>>> So this is a convenient way to bring us back to
the other half of the 
>>> issue which we do not seem to have discussed
yet. When the syntax was 
>>> defined that allowed ?headers:
>>>
>>>       Headers: Header fields to be included in
a request constructed
>>>          from the URI.
>>>
>>>          Headers fields in the SIP request can
be specified with the "?"
>>>          mechanism within a URI.  The header
names and values are
>>>          encoded in ampersand separated hname =
hvalue pairs.  The
>>>          special hname "body"
indicates that the associated hvalue is
>>>          the message-body of the SIP request.
>>>
>>> What usage did the SIP WG envisage for this,
and thus what semantics 
>>> did they define for that usage.
>>>
>>> Is it appropriate to assign new semantics to
such usage?
>>>
>>
>> I believe we were confused about the differences
between headers and 
>> URI parameters and didn't quite get the
"?" notation used with HTTP 
>> cgi-bin.
> 
> I'm not certain there was any actual confusion here
when we settled on 
> that syntax originally. RFC 2396 (which was current at
the time, 
> although it has been superseded by RFC 3986) describes
this portion of a 
> URI as nothing more than: "The query component is
a string of 
> information to be interpreted by the resource." I
think SIP's use is 
> consistent with that.
> 
> Additionally, RFC 2368 gives clear and strong precedent
for precisely 
> this interpretation of the query component of URIs.
> 
> /a
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP
Protocol
> Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for
questions on current sip
> Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the
application of sip
> 


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip