Re: 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:[email protected]] 
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 [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip