Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi,
All we need is draft-subscribe-header-for-invite... :)
THis of course is predicated on the assumption that the same
two parties are the right ones to be involved in the
subscription and the invite.
This works out ok for DTMF. It remains to be seen where else
it is valid.
It might seem that it would be valid for the dialog event
package. But it might not be if the goal is to get
consolidated event state for all UASs of the same AOR. Its
far from clear that the subscriber would know.
So there probably at least needs to be some way to accept the
INVITE but reject the bundled subscription. And in that case
the caller needs to move to "plan B".
The "bundled subscriptions" need to be negotiated in both directions.
That means something like:
INVITE must contain:
- these are the events I am willing to send
- these are the events I desire to receive
response must contain:
- these are the events I will send (subset from invite)
- these are the events you should send (subset from invite)
Maybe we could re-use the SDP direction attributes (sendrecv, sendonly,
recvonly) for this?
Are you serious? Or have you been smoking something? :-)
Certainly you can use the SDP direction attributes if you want to
establish media sessions for this event signaling. But AFAIK the point
here is to negotiate the use of signaling in the sip session itself.
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
