On 4/24/13 09:19, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Hi Elwyn, thanks for the review.
On Apr 23, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
Generic comment about SIP Header Field Parameters registry: For the
uninitiated this registry is rather opaque. Some parameters, such as
the Call-Info purpose parameter for which an extra value is defined
here, have predefined values. However the predefined values
themselves are not in the registry and just giving a whole RFC
reference for places where values are defined is not very helpful.
For example, in the case of Call-Info, the initial predefined values
of purpose are buried in the Call-Info rule in the ABNF in Section
25.1 of RFC 3261; also, Section 20.9 describes the predefined values
(such as "icon") as 'parameters' rather than values of 'purpose'. It
would probably be helpful to either improve the references in the
registry table or actaully quote the possible predefined values in
the table.
I agree, but as you say that's an issue with the SIP Header Field
Parameters registry in general. I started to go down the path of
fixing the registry as a whole, but I think I'd rather leave that for
3261bis to tackle (sometime before the heat death of the universe).
Yes, the registry is a mess, largely due to the rather whimsical
preferences -- which would vary from year to year -- of the SIP
community regarding which fields needed a registry and which did not.
It's grown to be the way it is somewhat organically, and I agree that
the overall SIP registry is something of a mess.
I'm not sure we need to wait for a 3261bis to fix things, as I doubt we
could find someone with the fortitude to take on an effort that large.
It might be worth finding someone to work on a "registry overhaul"
document that attempts to make the whole thing more coherent. I'll be
keeping this in mind as a potential SIPCORE item.
/a
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
