> -----Original Message----- > From: Dean Willis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 20 November 2008 22:47 > To: Paul Kyzivat > Cc: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); SIP List; Elwell, John; Christer Holmberg > Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO Framework: Tags > > > On Nov 20, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > > > > > > > Dean Willis wrote: > > > >> If I don't support info-packages, then I MIGHT support > old-info. If > >> I do, then I MIGHT understand an INFO (or the legacy set), and I > >> MIGHT send you one (from the legacy set). But I'm very, very > >> unlikely to understand any of the new CID-indirection-to-select-a- > >> body, multiple-body stuff, so don't send it! > > > > Dean, > > > > You don't need an option tag for this. After the invite, I can't > > send you an info package unless you have provided a > Recv-Info for it. > > Okay, I'm willing to believe that. > > What if I have an application that really, really requires info- > packages, so I want the call to fail if you can't handle them? > > Would this arise, or would it always be preferable to complete the > INVITE exchange, then tear the call down once I find out that > you don't? [JRE] This might arise on a per-package basis, in which case the spec that defines that package can also define the option tag. I can't see it arising in a package-independent context, so we don't need an option tag for the extension as a whole.
PLEASE try to keep this extension as simple as possible - this option tag / media feature tag business adds complexity. Are we really trying to dissuade people from implementing this extension? John _______________________________________________ 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
