Re: Legacy Info Package Registration

Hi,

I guess one option is to e.g. have an annex, where we for legacy usages
list Content-Type and a reference (if available) to where the usage is
described.

If there are different legacy usages with the same Content-Type, I don't
think we should deal with that. That would just show the need for the
info packages.

Also, I don't think we would need to collect each and every legacy usage
out there (I am not sure we would manage to do that even with a
registry).

Regards,

Christer




> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: 31. lokakuuta 2008 2:43
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Cc: SIP IETF
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Legacy Info Package Registration
> 
> 
> 
> DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> 
> > At the moment I am also unsure what criteria we would use for 
> > identifing a legacy usage, apart from some rather vague textual 
> > description. It after all does not have a package name.
> 
> With legacy usage, the only distinguishing characteristic 
> that I am aware has ever been used is Content-Type. So I 
> think the registry has to be based on Content-Type, probably 
> on a FCFS basis. (Though perhaps there might be need of an 
> appeals process if there are conflicting usages. But I doubt 
> we will find that.)
> 
> 	Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use 
> [email protected] for questions on current sip 
> Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip
> 
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip