[X] Punt - I may or may not want an IANA registry, but if we do create one, do it in another draft
I think we should punt for now. However, IF we decide that for SIP, as a whole, we do try to bring more real implemenation stuff into the fold, then I think we should have a registry, that should be included in a separate document. I'm afraid we may get very delayed if we try to do that now, as there may be a tendency to analyze legacy usages in terms of how reasonable people think they are - i.e., there may be some for which there is a clear standard's solution and then we'll debate whether we include them all whether folks would ever deem them useful or not. Mary. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Burger Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 11:14 AM To: Paul Kyzivat Cc: SIP IETF Subject: [Sip] Legacy Info Package Registration We discussed creating a registry, and we discussed whether it would be in this document. On the one hand, the discussion was not conclusive. On the other, here are my reasons for not including it in the Info Packages document: 1. We go at lengths to say how to do Info Packages. The last thing we need to do is say, "by the way, it's not so bad if you don't." 2. People not involved today will look at such a registry and, no matter how much doom and gloom wording we use, will think it's OK to not use Info Packages. 3. People will be confused, thinking Content-Type is sufficient to identify an Info Package. It is not. 4. How would we possibly police the registry? If someone comes to IANA to register a new MIME type do the klaxons ring? That would not be a good thing. So, time for another poll: [ ] Yes - we really, really need an IANA registry of "legacy" INFO usages, and we need it done in this draft (NOTE: creating the IANA registry requires the seed values, which means this draft will enumerate the known legacy usages) [ ] No, do not create an IANA registry, but please enumerate known legacy usages in this draft [ ] No - please do not create an IANA registry [ ] Punt - I may or may not want an IANA registry, but if we do create one, do it in another draft [ ] Other: ________________________________ On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > 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. _______________________________________________ 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
