Hi, I agree with Paul: it's about documenting stuff in a way so that not only we understand it (eventhough there are RFCs which I am not sure even people on the list fully understands :), but also that others understand it.
I also think that history also shows that having too much restrictive design can cause problems later. Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 2:15 AM To: Iñaki Baz Castillo Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO Framework - one pakage per INFO I think it defining valid syntax without carefully defining the corresponding semantics that is the problem. As long as we define both I don't see it as a problem. Thanks, Paul Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > El Viernes, 28 de Noviembre de 2008, Christer Holmberg escribió: >> If there is no technical reason I don't see why we again shall make a >> restriction which we later may "suffer" from. > > I think the whole SIP protocol is a good example of how a too much > permissive design creates more interop issues than a more restricted design. > _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
