Subject: [Simple] RPID IANA

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 23:03:36 -0400

I'm cleaning up the RPID document to get it ready for WGLC. For 
historical reasons, the document calls for IANA registries of various 
items, such as activities. However, since extensions are now done via 
namespaces it seems less clear that this is needed. Any opinions?

Henning

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:58:10 -0400

As long as each element that contains an enumeration can be arbitrarily 
extended with additional elements, I think that is probably ok. However 
the downside to that approach is that there is no place to go to 
discover what all the currently defined values are.

I think the problem is worse for precaps. In that case there is one 
mechanism for registering new feature tags that may be used in callee 
caps, but no corresponding mechanism for the corresponding prescaps 
elements. I'm troubled by that one but people haven't liked the 
approaches that seem to work for it.

	Paul

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:39:33 -0400

On Jun 26, 2005, at 11:58 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> As long as each element that contains an enumeration can be  
> arbitrarily extended with additional elements, I think that is  
> probably ok. However the downside to that approach is that there is  
> no place to go to discover what all the currently defined values are.

Indeed; one approach to deal with this is to require the same  
extension mechanism as for PIDF. In particular, rather than having  
separate registries for each of these items, simply say that any  
extension (could be new top-level elements parallel to <mood> or a  
new activity value) need to be registered via IANA.  This doesn't  
prevent private extensions, but that isn't the goal.

> mechanism for registering new feature tags that may be used in  
> callee caps, but no corresponding mechanism for the corresponding  
> prescaps elements. I'm troubled by that one but people haven't  
> liked the approaches that seem to work for it.
>
>     Paul
>
>> historical reasons, the document calls for IANA registries of  
>> various items, such as activities. However, since extensions are  
>> now done via namespaces it seems less clear that this is needed.  
>> Any opinions?
>> Henning