I'd certainly support this. I think in the meeting someone already said it, but will better to have this and not need it than need it and not have it.
David (as individual) On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Bruce Lowekamp<[email protected]> wrote: > Part of a recent thread about Client support discussed the option of > adding additional semantics to an existing method vs adding a new > method. We currently have extension points for some structures, but > we don't have a general way for an extension to add new semantics or > options to an existing method. > > One possible solution is to add an Option header to the existing > methods, in the same spirit of ForwardingOption in the forwarding > header. A TLV structure with an option for whether it is > mandatory/optional to understand would allow significant extensibility > without defining new methods for every new extension. > > Bruce > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
