Re: [SIP] draft-rosenberg-sip-guidelines-00.txt

Neil Deason wrote:
> 
> > > Couldn't the OPTIONS method be used to provide such a probing mechanism
> > > within the standard SIP framework? The response to an OPTIONS request
> > > should include an Allow header entity-field that lists the supported set
> > > of headers, including any extension-methods.
> >
> > Well, Allow lists allowed methods, not new extensions. New extensions
> > are listed in the Supported header.
> 
> I am not sure I see your point - the probing mechanism defined in the draft is
> described only in relation to new methods not extensions. 

Right, thats my point. Your comment was:

> The response to an OPTIONS request
> should include an Allow header entity-field that lists the supported set
> of headers, including any extension-methods.

which was that the Allow header should list supported headers. It does
not. It only lists allowed methods.

> What if an extension method was an "outside of the call" method, so there was
> no preceeding INVITE. Is it sufficient just to send the new method and accept
> the response you get might be 405 Method Not Allowed?

Of course. 

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg                       72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (732) 741-4778
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen         PHONE: (732) 741-7244
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
SIP mailing list
SIP@lists.bell-labs.com
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/sip