["Martin Mathieson" <martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I also tend to prefer to view SDP as being part of the message rather than
an entity on its own.  It adds details to the SIP/BICC/MEGACO part rather
than use it as a transport.  I sent in the selected bytes patch because in
order to support SIP interop problems because I need an easy way for myself
and others to extract the full details of a SIP message.

sipfrag is another SIP message type that can have an SDP body.  sipfrag
bodies consist of selected lines from other SIP packets, and this can (in
theory) include an SDP body.  I wouldn't want to put sipfrag at the top
level, it has no context without the SIP headers. In a packet that consisted
of SIP/sipfrag/SDP I'd *definitely* want everything under the SIP tree.

Martin




On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:46:23AM +0100, Anders Broman (AL/EAB) wrote:
> My reasoning is that SDP is part of the SIP/BICC(not ISUP ):)/MEGACO
> message and not an entity of it's own.

What do you mean by "not en entity of it's own"? There's a clear point
where the SIP part stops and the SDP part begins. Where is the difference
to - let's say IP and TCP?

  Ciao
   Jï¿œrg