OK. Adam has persuaded me that overlap with relevant existing event
packages is negligible (none, or perhaps KPML - more on that later) and
that recommending that new ones be created to support two mechanisms is
a bad idea.
So that leaves the question of whether to nail down a negotiation
mechanism for "info-packages".
The obvious first case to consider is DTMF. The problem of course is
that we already have two standard methods for transfering DTMF
(telephone-events in RTP, and KPML subscriptions.) So standardizing use
of INFO for this would mean standardizing a *different* way than KPML.
And most likely it would be different than the non-standard way(s?) of
using INFO for DTMF in the wild. Is that going to do anybody any good,
or just give people more heartburn? Perhaps we should either bless what
is being used or else continue to treat it with benign neglect.
Once you get past that one, I think we might as well wait until somebody
has something else they want to exchange this way to before getting too
caught up in inventing machinery.