Hi, >>>>>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? :-) >> >> Sometimes I think that would help in these discussions :) >> >>>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. >> >>I guess I should have been more clear. I didn't mean that we start >>using SDP for this, but that we could use something SIMILAR to the >>direction attributes - but in the form of some SIP header >>parameters. > >Oh - thats not quite so crazy. > >Yes, I suppose something like that could be done. But given >how much confusion that seems to have caused with SDP, I >would certainly think twice before using it again. > >Note that this will need to be more than a one-time >negotiation. Its possible that the agreement will need to be >renegotiated in mid-call. >(This comes up at least in 3pcc scenarios, where a device in >the middle is performing a transfer without the knowledge of >the other side.)
I agree. I guess there could also be needs to add/remove "event subscriptions" (or whatever we would call it) during the call, so... Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ 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
