Dean Willis wrote:
I don't in general
see a need to specify this as part of the extension in general, but if a
particular package needs a feature tag, let it define one. Keep the
extension simple.
Only standards-track RFCs can define SIP option tags under RFC 3427, and
we have no plans to relax this requirement.
But we have a much looser policy for INFO packages; most will not be
standards-track.
So, for those sorts of packages, an info-package option tag is
potentially quite useful.
For that to be useful, each package would need its own option. While I
guess we could define things such that each info-package registration
implied a corresponding option tag registration, then that would be an
end-around of the standards-track requirement for defining option tags.
We really don't want that, or we will have people defining info-packages
they don't intend to use, just to get an option tag.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
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
