Re: INFO Framework: Tags

Sorry, but you seem to have a use case that is relying on the absence of
an option tag to tell you....

....absolutely nothing. 

regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:42 PM
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Cc: Christer Holmberg; Elwell, John; Eric Burger; SIP List
> Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO Framework: Tags
> 
> 
> On Nov 20, 2008, at 12:32 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> 
> > You seem to be arguing that packages themselves may need to have 
> > option tags, rather than the extension itself, which does 
> not answer 
> > the question I asked.
> >
> 
> That is not my intent. I'm talking about the use of option 
> tags to say "Yes, I support the concept of info-packages" vs 
> "I do not support the concept of info-packages".
> 
> > What I asked was whether there was a need to have an option tag 
> > specifically for the info-package extension.
> 
> yes, and that's what I tied to answer.
> 
> > There were no option tags for pre package info behaviour, 
> so there is 
> > no information to tell you that if I don't support the new 
> extension 
> > that I supported the previous incarnation of INFO. So I do 
> not see how 
> > that can be used for fallback.
> 
> If I don't support info-packages, then I MIGHT support 
> old-info. If I do, then I MIGHT understand an INFO (or the 
> legacy set), and I MIGHT send you one (from the legacy set). 
> But I'm very, very unlikely to understand any of the new 
> CID-indirection-to-select-a-body, multiple- body stuff, so 
> don't send it!
> 
> --
> Dean
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
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