The core of the draft are exactly the RFC's you mention below. The only addition IMO is the notion of line appearance selection and extensions to dialog state payload to reflect the same. I am not sure I understand what aspects of the draft you find complex? It would definitely help if you can elaborate your concerns?
Venkatesh On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/11/10 Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Oh, sorry. I haven't been paying much attention to BLA. I didn't realize > it > > covered this case. (I was thinking it only covered multiple "extensions" > > with same identity. But now that I look I see it does cover the > > boss/secretary case as well. > > I've read and re-read BLA draft and it seems really really complex, > but I wonder why it's not enought with 3rd Party Registration, RFC > 4235 (INVITE package subscription) and REFER with "replaces" in order > to get the same behaviour. > Perhaps somebofy could explain me the beneficts of using BLA. > > > -- > Iñaki Baz Castillo > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
