Hi, I guess one option is to e.g. have an annex, where we for legacy usages list Content-Type and a reference (if available) to where the usage is described.
If there are different legacy usages with the same Content-Type, I don't think we should deal with that. That would just show the need for the info packages. Also, I don't think we would need to collect each and every legacy usage out there (I am not sure we would manage to do that even with a registry). Regards, Christer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat > Sent: 31. lokakuuta 2008 2:43 > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > Cc: SIP IETF > Subject: Re: [Sip] Legacy Info Package Registration > > > > DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > > > At the moment I am also unsure what criteria we would use for > > identifing a legacy usage, apart from some rather vague textual > > description. It after all does not have a package name. > > With legacy usage, the only distinguishing characteristic > that I am aware has ever been used is Content-Type. So I > think the registry has to be based on Content-Type, probably > on a FCFS basis. (Though perhaps there might be need of an > appeals process if there are conflicting usages. But I doubt > we will find that.) > > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
