Re: [Sip] INFO Framework: Tags

[Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan at acmepacket.com>]

I agree with John too.  I don't see the benefit.  It would be beneficial to have one for a specific package, for example dtmf, maybe, but not the mechanism.  It's like having an option tag to support the Allow/Accept/Supported headers, as opposed to their values.  This draft is basically just a negotiation mechanism and defining how to handle things - not the things themselves.

We'll still have the method name "INFO" for the Allow header, if you want to say you can't do INFO requests.

-hadriel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Elwell, John
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 8:21 AM
> To: Christer Holmberg; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Dean Willis; Paul Kyzivat
> Cc: SIP List
> Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO Framework: Tags
>
> Christer,
>
> OK, it might be simple, but still unnecessary, so why do it. I haven't
> heard a compelling argument in its favour. Per-package option tags are
> far more compelling (depending on particular needs of a package),
> although I agree such packages would need a standards track document.
>
> John
>
_______________________________________________
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