El Jueves, 18 de Junio de 2009, martin.hy...@gmail.com escribió:
> Hi all
>
> Unfortunately, IETF's work on XCAP spec and related standards (pres rules,
> various extensions ...) was not fast enough and in some directions not
> broad enough. And OMA was pushed by industry to do something. If the
>
Hi all
Unfortunately, IETF's work on XCAP spec and related standards (pres rules,
various extensions ...) was not fast enough and in some directions not
broad enough. And OMA was pushed by industry to do something. If the
standards defined by OMA had to be adopted by vendors they had to be f
2009/6/17 Iñaki Baz Castillo :
> PS: Could I be pointed to the XDM specification please?
OMG, I hope it's not required to read so many documents as the
appearing in this link:
http://www.openmobilealliance.org/technical/release_program/xdm_v2_0.aspx
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
_
2009/6/17 Eduardo Martins :
> If there is a group that has been working on making XCAP useful for
> everyone it is OMA for sure, with the XDM specification, not IETF or
> even 3GPP, which I think is the big issue of almost none adoption in
> SIP clients.
>
> Btw, I wonder what is the problem with a
If there is a group that has been working on making XCAP useful for
everyone it is OMA for sure, with the XDM specification, not IETF or
even 3GPP, which I think is the big issue of almost none adoption in
SIP clients.
Btw, I wonder what is the problem with a auid name, that actually
follows the X
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Thanks for so great explanation.
>
> However, I wonder why so many new features are needed when most of the
> devices
> don't implement XCAP yet. The fact I don't consider useful all the new
> features described above. Is it really implemented "somewhere"?
I susp
t: Re: [Sip-implementors] XCAP: Why
"org.openmobilealliance.pres-rules" instead of just "pres-rules"?
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Date: 16/06/2009 22:20
El Martes, 16 de Junio de 2009, Vikram Chhibber escribió:
I also won
El Martes, 16 de Junio de 2009, Vikram Chhibber escribió:
> I also wondered the same. May be, they did not like the fact that
> "pres-rules" took so much time to become a standard.:)
Offering the same with a new name can help at all :(
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
I also wondered the same. May be, they did not like the fact that
"pres-rules" took so much time to become a standard.:)
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Hi, I'm starting with XCAP and realized that while IETF defines "pres-rules"
> identifier, OMA has "added" "org.ope
Hi, I'm starting with XCAP and realized that while IETF defines "pres-rules"
identifier, OMA has "added" "org.openmobilealliance.pres-rules".
Some softphones supporting XCAP use "org.openmobilealliance.pres-rules"
instead of "pres-rules".
Why?
Why is allowed this kind of additions to SIP? Does
10 matches
Mail list logo
