Re: INFO Framework: Tags

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 11:21 PM
>
> DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> > But now you are making the assumption that all info-packages require the
> > call to fail if I do not support the info package.
>
> No, I'm not. I'm saying that SOME non-standards-track INFO packages will
> need the call to fail if the far end does not support INFO packages. If
> they don't need it to fail, they shouldn't use the options tag in a
> Require directive.

Again, if a non-standards-track INFO package needs its info package, they'll do non-standard things to get the behavior they need, by putting their non-standard package name in Require, and it works.  It is not necessary for us to help them.  And again doing a check for the generic info-package draft support is not sufficient to accomplish their goal anyway, because as soon as another device supports the draft but not their specific non-standard one, they're back to square one.  So it's neither necessary nor sufficient.  What is there to debate over?


> This is pretty basic stuff, kids. Why are you making it so darned hard?

Because it's easier (and cheaper) to debate this now than to handle the tech-support calls later.


> > By default, we must make the ordinary assumption we make for all
> > extensions, i.e. that we can discard the information if it is not
> > understood.
>
> Don't even get me started on explaining the blatant hypocrisy in that
> statement when compared to the extensions driven from 3GPP ;-).

But that's why we're in the IETF and not 3GPP.

-hadriel
_______________________________________________
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