Re: Payload Type number assignments
Paul Tsuchiya <tsuchiya@thumper.bellcore.com> Tue, 26 January 1993 21:18 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09958;
26 Jan 93 16:18 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09954;
26 Jan 93 16:18 EST
Received: from thumper.bellcore.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25971;
26 Jan 93 16:20 EST
Received: by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7)
id <AA23669> for ietf-archive@nri.reston.va.us; Tue, 26 Jan 93 16:18:27 EST
Received: from chiya.bellcore.com by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7)
id <AA23349> for /usr/lib/sendmail -oi -fowner-pip X-pip;
Tue, 26 Jan 93 16:15:59 EST
Received: by chiya.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7)
id <AA03390> for tsuchiya@thumper.bellcore.com; Tue, 26 Jan 93 16:15:58 EST
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 16:15:58 EST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Paul Tsuchiya <tsuchiya@thumper.bellcore.com>
Message-Id: <9301262115.AA03390@chiya.bellcore.com>
To: deering@parc.xerox.com, tsuchiya@thumper.bellcore.com
Subject: Re: Payload Type number assignments
Cc: iana@isi.edu, pip@thumper.bellcore.com, sip@caldera.usc.edu
> > I suggest that you do not re-use the SIP protocol ID (41) for Pip, but > rather choose one of 4, 94, or 98; we should think about doing the same > thing for SIP. > Hmmmmmm. 4 seems like a good choice to me....... PX
- Re: Payload Type number assignments Paul Tsuchiya
- Re: Payload Type number assignments Steve Deering
- Re: Payload Type number assignments Paul Tsuchiya