ietf@ietf.org
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Comments on draft-peterson-rai-rfc3427bis-02.txt

Subject: Re: Comments on draft-peterson-rai-rfc3427bis-02.txt
From: Adam Roach
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:00:37 -0500
Bernard Aboba wrote:
Do all [SIP] option tags really need to be standards track?


I would argue that they do. Option tags define normative extensions to the core SIP protocol. The prospect of defining a SIP protocol extension in, say, an informational or historical document seems rather ill-advised. Even an experimental document is probably the wrong place to put extensions to core SIP protocol handling.

I would feel even more uneasy about allowing non-IETF documents to define option tags: the types of extensions that would necessitate an options tag usually add enough semantics to the protocol that it would be foolish to condone their creation without IESG review.

/a
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: Comments on draft-peterson-rai-rfc3427bis-02.txt, Adam Roach <=