John, My impression of the discussion so far is that using NOTIFY (or INTIFY as Christer suggests) in this way would not constitute a new dialog-usage. A new usage would imply periodic resubscription and specific termination, whereas sending INTIFY within the context of the INVITE-usage means that the lifetime issues can be ignored: terminate the call, and INTIFY no longer has a context.
This neatly avoids violating the letter of the dialogusage draft, but you could probably argue that creating sub-usages of the INVITE-usage isn't necessarily in keeping with the spirit of the draft... Regards, Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Elwell, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 19 October 2007 07:41 > To: Adam Roach; Paul Kyzivat > Cc: sip; Brian Stucker > Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO > > Adam, > > Now that you have reminded us of the dialogusage draft, perhaps it > would > be appropriate to remind people of the following from the abstract: > "This memo argues that multiple dialog usages should be avoided. It > discusses alternatives to their use and clarifies essential behavior > for > elements that cannot currently avoid them." > In other words, while it will only be an Informational RFC, it seems > to > deprecate introduction of further dialog reuses. So if we were to go > with NOTIFY, would this be a new dialog usage, and if so, do we really > want to go ahead with something in contradiction to the sentiment of > that recently-approved draft? > > John > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Roach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 19 October 2007 01:05 > > To: Paul Kyzivat > > Cc: sip; Brian Stucker > > Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO > > > > Paul Kyzivat wrote: > > > I mostly agree with Adam. The place where I take exception > > is INFO. It > > > is my impression that INFO was designed for use with INVITE, and > so > > > should be considered to be part of an invite-dialog-usage. > > And Robert > > > specified it that way in the dialogusage draft. > > > > You're correct. I had forgotten about that, and the dialogusage > draft > > does make it clear: INFO is part of the INVITE usage. RFC > > 2976 predates > > the current terminology, but a quick re-read does show that > > it's pretty > > clearly appropriate only for INVITE usages. > > > > /a > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
