Dean Willis wrote:
I don't in general see a need to specify this as part of the extension in general, but if a particular package needs a feature tag, let it define one. Keep the extension simple.Only standards-track RFCs can define SIP option tags under RFC 3427, and we have no plans to relax this requirement.But we have a much looser policy for INFO packages; most will not be standards-track.So, for those sorts of packages, an info-package option tag is potentially quite useful.
For that to be useful, each package would need its own option. While I guess we could define things such that each info-package registration implied a corresponding option tag registration, then that would be an end-around of the standards-track requirement for defining option tags. We really don't want that, or we will have people defining info-packages they don't intend to use, just to get an option tag.
Thanks, Paul _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip