[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Sip] INFO Framework: Tags
Hi,
I agree that we don't need to define option tags for each info-package.
>From a SIP perspective the extension (indicated by the option tag) is
the capabilty of transporting info-packages, not the info-packages
themselves.
Regards,
Christer
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat at cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 3:58 PM
To: Dean Willis
Cc: Elwell, John; SIP List; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Christer Holmberg
Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO Framework: Tags
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