Re: SIP+ latest draft - Follow up
Henning Schulzrinne <schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu> Wed, 06 October 1999 14:52 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-confctrl>
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) id HAA11967 for confctrl-outgoing; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tnt.isi.edu (tnt.isi.edu [128.9.128.128]) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA11962 for <confctrl@zephyr.isi.edu>; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs.columbia.edu (cs.columbia.edu [128.59.16.20]) by tnt.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA24297 for <confctrl@ISI.EDU>; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opus.cs.columbia.edu (opus.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.20.100]) by cs.columbia.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA22714; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:52:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cs.columbia.edu (bart.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.19.191]) by opus.cs.columbia.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA11981; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:52:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <37FB6228.4FEF15F@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 10:52:24 -0400
From: Henning Schulzrinne <schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu>
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Computer Science
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: archow@hss.hns.com
CC: confctrl@ISI.EDU
Subject: Re: SIP+ latest draft - Follow up
References: <65256802.0049F6AA.00@sampark.hss.hns.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-confctrl@zephyr.isi.edu
Precedence: bulk
archow@hss.hns.com wrote: > > Hi a followup to my mail: As a meta-point, this discussion should be on the SIP mailing list, not confctrl. > > I have just gone thru draft-zimmerer-mmusic-sip-bcp-t-00.txt and > draft-ietf-mmusic-sip-info-method-01.txt > Both these two together suggest one form of MGC-MGC communication. The term SIP+ is obsolete and should not be used. It just creates confusion. There is no separate protocol, just a set of recommendation, the BCP, for carrying multipart MIME messages in SIP, plus some other extensions. I've added this to the FAQ and moved the document below to the "historical" section. > > I also have the SIP+ doc from Level 3 (ed 0.0 draft 0.1) which suggests a > different one. This document is outdated. > > Which out of the two have gained more prominence as of now ? > > The sip-bcp doc dated Sep 1999 is more recent than the SIP+ doc I have - > has SIP+ eveloved beyond the doc I have ? > > Hi, > It seems hgs' site is down - have been trying to access it - but :-( The site is back up. -- Henning Schulzrinne http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs
- SIP+ latest draft - Follow up archow
- Re: SIP+ latest draft - Follow up Henning Schulzrinne
- RE: SIP+ latest draft - Follow up Aparna.Vemuri