Re: INFO Framework - one pakage per INFO

Right, so that's one possible direction to go for INFO as well: don't mandate any model in the base spec.  Keep it simple.  Let the packages do their own dirty work, under review.
-hadriel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 8:40 AM
> To: Hadriel Kaplan; Eric Burger; Anders Kristensen
> Cc: SIP List
> Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO Framework - one pakage per INFO
>
> I don't remember any history of this, but would contend that the way RFC
> 3903 text is written in regards to bodies in responses is tantamount to
> saying "bodies in responses is for further study". It is basically
> trying to say, if in implementing this you receive a body in a response,
> then don't start failing things at the SIP transaction level.
>
> And remember, this requires an event package to define the usage, and
> you need RFCs to define event packages, so I suspect any expert review
> or above would take a very deep look at any such definition.
>
> Keith
_______________________________________________
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