On Nov 20, 2008, at 12:32 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
You seem to be arguing that packages themselves may need to have
option
tags, rather than the extension itself, which does not answer the
question I asked.
That is not my intent. I'm talking about the use of option tags to say
"Yes, I support the concept of info-packages" vs "I do not support the
concept of info-packages".
What I asked was whether there was a need to have an option tag
specifically for the info-package extension.
yes, and that's what I tied to answer.
There were no option tags for pre package info behaviour, so there
is no
information to tell you that if I don't support the new extension
that I
supported the previous incarnation of INFO. So I do not see how that
can
be used for fallback.
If I don't support info-packages, then I MIGHT support old-info. If I
do, then I MIGHT understand an INFO (or the legacy set), and I MIGHT
send you one (from the legacy set). But I'm very, very unlikely to
understand any of the new CID-indirection-to-select-a-body, multiple-
body stuff, so don't send it!
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
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
