While I see rules in 5.1 and 6 that permit use of legacy packages at the
INFO UAS, I find no rules that permit sending a legacy INFO. I guess it
must be possible to use legacy INFO even when both sides support this
new info package mechanism. And I guess the evidence that a UA *doesn't*
support this new mechanism (by the absence of the headers in
request/response) is just equivalent to one that explicitly negotiates
support of no packages.
Regarding registration if INFO packages - I thought we also wanted to
introduce a registry for legacy usages of INFO, to encourage them to
come out into the daylight. I guess maybe that would be a separate
registry, since the key for it will have to be Content-Type. So it
*could* be established from a different document. But I think this is
the likely place to do it, since its the place where all the eyeballs
will be. I think the rule for registering those needs to be that one can
only be registered if the Content-Type has not already been registered,
and it was in *use* with INFO prior to this document becoming an RFC.
(The registration itself could be done later. I guess it would be the
honor system.) Any usages being deployed after this becomes an RFC would
be required to use the new mechanism.
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
