On Nov 21, 2008, at 7:57 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:



Dean Willis wrote:

I don't in general
see a need to specify this as part of the extension in general, but if a
particular package needs a feature tag, let it define one. Keep the
extension simple.
Only standards-track RFCs can define SIP option tags under RFC 3427, and we have no plans to relax this requirement. But we have a much looser policy for INFO packages; most will not be standards-track. So, for those sorts of packages, an info-package option tag is potentially quite useful.

For that to be useful, each package would need its own option.

Not exactly. If I know you don't support info-packages at all, I can readily presume you don't support any specific info-package, including those non-STD-track packages that can't possibly have their own SIP options tag.

Having discovered via OPTIONS that you support info-packages, I could then decide to offer the specific package needed in an INVITE. This can weed out a lot of abortive calls.

Without the info-package tag, I can't use OPTIONS to decide whether or not you support info-packages, and must probe with a real-live INVITE (which could make things a bit strange with lots of ring-answer-hangup calls).

Sure, if every UA supports info-package as a concept this isn't useful. But in a transitional phase (which is what we have) where a great many UAs are not supporting it al all, it's better than a call- and-hangup probe.


While I guess we could define things such that each info-package registration implied a corresponding option tag registration, then that would be an end-around of the standards-track requirement for defining option tags. We really don't want that, or we will have people defining info-packages they don't intend to use, just to get an option tag.


I agree heartily.

--
Dean


_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to