> -----Original Message----- > From: Dean Willis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 11:21 PM > > 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.
Again, if a non-standards-track INFO package needs its info package, they'll do non-standard things to get the behavior they need, by putting their non-standard package name in Require, and it works. It is not necessary for us to help them. And again doing a check for the generic info-package draft support is not sufficient to accomplish their goal anyway, because as soon as another device supports the draft but not their specific non-standard one, they're back to square one. So it's neither necessary nor sufficient. What is there to debate over? > This is pretty basic stuff, kids. Why are you making it so darned hard? Because it's easier (and cheaper) to debate this now than to handle the tech-support calls later. > > 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 ;-). But that's why we're in the IETF and not 3GPP. -hadriel _______________________________________________ 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
