Re: [sipcore] Extensions to the reg event package
"Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com> Thu, 21 October 2010 22:24 UTC
Return-Path: <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86FA33A63EC for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.289, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r87n5j893cyF for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from csmailgw1.commscope.com (csmailgw1.commscope.com [198.135.207.244]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94CA23A63EB for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.86.20.103] ([10.86.20.103]:7259 "EHLO ACDCE7HC2.commscope.com") by csmailgw1.commscope.com with ESMTP id S36140022Ab0JUWZf (ORCPT <rfc822; sipcore@ietf.org>); Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:25:35 -0500
Received: from SISPE7HC2.commscope.com (10.97.4.13) by ACDCE7HC2.commscope.com (10.86.20.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.436.0; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:25:35 -0500
Received: from SISPE7MB1.commscope.com ([fe80::9d82:a492:85e3:a293]) by SISPE7HC2.commscope.com ([fe80::58c3:2447:f977:57c3%10]) with mapi; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 06:25:33 +0800
From: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>, "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 06:25:31 +0800
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] Extensions to the reg event package
Thread-Index: ActxSNxgv9N7FJTlQcWWShNQZ2FghQAJW4oQ
Message-ID: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03F31EABA6@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
References: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B220228896A@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <4CC07E0F.4030508@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CC07E0F.4030508@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BCN: Meridius 1000 Version 3.4 on csmailgw1.commscope.com
X-BCN-Sender: Martin.Thomson@andrew.com
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Extensions to the reg event package
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:24:00 -0000
> On 10/21/2010 1:44 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: > practice would be upward-compatible. I suspect that there is some > formal reason why extending an existing namespace is not done. In practice, a processor that uses the original schema definitions is likely to reject a document that uses the modified structure. For instance, the original might define (A, B, *) where * is an extension point, and the extension defines (A, B, C, *). Because if the way that * is defined, it means anything not in this namespace. If the original sees C, which claims to be in the same namespace, it rejects it. The size of namespace declarations is a common source of complaints. The usual response is to point folks at ASN.1+?ER. I wouldn't dream of being so rude. --Martin
- [sipcore] Extensions to the reg event package Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: [sipcore] Extensions to the reg event package Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] Extensions to the reg event package Thomson, Martin
- Re: [sipcore] Extensions to the reg event package Worley, Dale R (Dale)