Subject: [Sip] Call For Consensus on INFO Tags

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:54:16 -0500

I let the dialog run for some 57 messages, hoping to see some  
convergence.

What I am hearing is the vast majority of people feel that the  
presence of a Recv-Info in an INVITE, 200 OK, or OPTIONS is sufficient  
to signal the UA supports the new Info Framework.  There are a few  
hold-outs - speak now with strong use cases for a generic Option Tag  
or hold your piece.

I am also hearing that it would be useful to give guidance to Info  
Package authors for when they may wish to define a Require tag for  
their package, a'la MSCML.  Again, this would be guidance, not a  
normative structure, as Option Tags already have a pretty nice  
definition.

Am I missing anything else?

Thanks.

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: "Christer Holmberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:17:47 +0100

Hi, 

convergence.
>
>What I am hearing is the vast majority of people feel that the presence
of a Recv-Info in an INVITE, 200 OK, or OPTIONS is sufficient to signal
the UA supports the new Info Framework.  There are a few 
>hold-outs - speak now with strong use cases for a generic Option Tag or
hold your piece.
>I am also hearing that it would be useful to give guidance to Info
Package authors for when they may wish to define a Require tag for their
package, a'la MSCML.  Again, this would be guidance, not a 
definition.
>Am I missing anything else?

I guess there should also be some guidance text for defining feature
tags, in case one wish to be able to use them in order to reach
terminals which supports specific info packages.

Regards,

Christer