DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > But now you are making the assumption that all info-packages require the > call to fail if I do not support the info package.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that SOME non-standards-track INFO packages will need the call to fail if the far end does not support INFO packages. If they don't need it to fail, they shouldn't use the options tag in a Require directive. This is pretty basic stuff, kids. Why are you making it so darned hard? > By default, we must make the ordinary assumption we make for all > extensions, i.e. that we can discard the information if it is not > understood. Don't even get me started on explaining the blatant hypocrisy in that statement when compared to the extensions driven from 3GPP ;-). > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Dean Willis >> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:51 PM >> To: Hadriel Kaplan >> Cc: SIP List >> Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO Framework: Tags >> >> >> On Nov 21, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: >>> All we have to do for vendor-proprietary users of INFO is make sure >>> they interoperate with those of us who don't have them, by letting >>> them discover we don't support them. (which is what >> recv-info does) >>> We don't need to work to give them more features. >>> >> But the caller can't get to the recv-info until it does an >> INVITE. I don't want to be getting INVITES for calls that are >> going to have to be dropped because I don't do info-packages >> at all. . . _______________________________________________ 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
