Hi, I agree that we don't need to define option tags for each info-package. >From a SIP perspective the extension (indicated by the option tag) is the capabilty of transporting info-packages, not the info-packages themselves.
Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 3:58 PM To: Dean Willis Cc: Elwell, John; SIP List; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Christer Holmberg Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO Framework: Tags 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
