Sorry, but you seem to have a use case that is relying on the absence of an option tag to tell you....
....absolutely nothing. regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Dean Willis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:42 PM > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > Cc: Christer Holmberg; Elwell, John; Eric Burger; SIP List > Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO Framework: Tags > > > 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
