Per your last point, this is why I "voted" as I did. I think it's important if we do document legacy to have a registry, so it's much easier to find. Unfortunately, when folks read drafts, they usually read only the sections that are related to why they picked up the doc in the first place and don't always comprehensively review the doc.
Based on some offline discussions, I think the legacy issue is not as bad as I had thought it would be. But, still a registry is most useful. And, again, we don't want this doc held up while we go searching for those. And, we don't want to have to update this doc later to add more (or worse yet, have them end up in a separate doc). The addition of the legacy usages should be quick and easy and maybe we can just designate a prime as first point of contact to offload chairs. Mary. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 8:39 AM To: Christer Holmberg Cc: SIP IETF; DRAGE,Keith (Keith) Subject: Re: [Sip] Legacy Info Package Registration Now that you mention it, allowing multiple definitions for the same C-T probably does make sense, though we hope there aren't any such cases. This is only for legacy, so we won't be making the problem worse that way. The advantage of a registry is that there isn't a deadline for when things are added to it. If another legacy usage is discovered in a few years, it can be added to a registry. But if we just put the list in a document, then it only contains those we find before the doc is finalized. Thanks, Paul Christer Holmberg wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
