Well you seem to be arguing for the need for an option tag in a Require header field rather than in a Supported header field. These are a barrier to interoperability and therefore need to be very carefully considered.
The basis for your argument still seems to be very much: lets define one because I might want one in the future. Conversely it might be: I need an option tag but its use will be so perverted that I do not dare tell the IETF community about it. Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 4:29 AM > To: Paul Kyzivat; Dean Willis > Cc: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); SIP List; Elwell, John > Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO Framework: Tags > > > >I just don't get how getting selectively to UAs that support *some* > info package is useful for anything. > > Well, it's better than choosing a UA which doesn't support > any packages. > > But, of course additional feature tags would be needed in many cases. > > In any case, I don't see why it would be such a big deal to > define an option tag, like we do for other extensions. > > Regards, > > Christer > > > Dean Willis wrote: > > > > > > No, you use the options tag with a sip.extensions media feature tag > > ala RFC 3840 in order to get a retargeting proxy to send > the request > > only to the subset of UAS that support the extension. > > > > -- > > Dean > > > > On Nov 20, 2008, at 5:03 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > > > >> You fork OPTIONS requests? > >> > >> Keith > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:58 PM > >>> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Dean Willis; Paul Kyzivat > >>> Cc: SIP List; Elwell, John > >>> Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO Framework: Tags > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>>> But what does an option tag in OPTIONS tell you over and above a > >>>> 200 > >>> (OK) response to OPTIONS with a Recv-Info header. > >>> > >>> Probably nothing. > >>> > >>> But, it can still be used for the forking. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Christer > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:53 PM > >>>> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Dean Willis; Paul Kyzivat > >>>> Cc: SIP List; Elwell, John > >>>> Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO Framework: Tags > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I still think we shall have an option tag for the > extension itself. > >>>> > >>>> Eventhough it does not gurantee that the UAS supports > specific info > > >>>> packages, at least you can use it to help finding a UAS > >>> which supports > >>> > >>>> the extensions (by using the sip.extensions feature tag). > >>>> > >>>> And, as Dean said, it can be used with OPTIONS. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> > >>>> Christer > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 12:50 AM > >>>> To: Dean Willis; Paul Kyzivat > >>>> Cc: SIP List; Elwell, John; Christer Holmberg > >>>> Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO Framework: Tags > >>>> > >>>> In which case you need an option tag for the info package itself. > >>>> > >>>> Noone is precluding that. > >>>> > >>>> regards > >>>> > >>>> Keith > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Dean Willis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:47 PM > >>>>> 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? > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> 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 > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
