Pros and Cons of allowing SIP Intermediaries to add MIME bodies
draft-mahy-sipping-body-add-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Rohan Mahy | ||
| Last updated | 2004-07-13 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The SIPPING Working Group has developed requirements for session policy (including bandwidth and codec restrictions, logging, and middlebox traversal), request history, and identity. This document discusses the pros and cons of allowing intermediaries to add SIP message bodies to address these requirements. It is intended to provoke serious discussion rather than as a complete proposal.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)