DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
It may be restrictive, but will anyone notice the restriction?
Is there anyone out there who has a current use case for two packages
per dialog - rather than "I've definitely used one therefore want to
reserve my options in case I need a second"?
ISUP + DTMF
Of course DTMF can be done other ways, but ...
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:41 AM
To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Elwell, John; Dean Willis
Cc: SIP IETF; Eric Burger; Paul Kyzivat
Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-info-events-00: multiple
packages per INFO
Hi,
I don't have a problem agreeing with that.
Note that buried somewhere in this thread was a question of
whether we
had a use case for multiple packages per dialog, or can we
simplify even further.
I don't think we should go that far, because that could
become very restrictive.
For example, assume I want to use INFO packages e.g. for DTMF
during the call setup, and then other INFO package(s) for
something else during the call.
Regards,
Christer
-----Original Message-----
From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:51 AM
To: Elwell, John; Dean Willis; DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Cc: SIP IETF; Eric Burger; Paul Kyzivat
Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-info-events-00: multiple packages
per INFO
Hi,
I agree with John. Let's keep it simple. If allowing
multiple packages
in a single INFO causes issues, let's forget about it.
The whole idea with this is to allow people using INFO to
do so in an
easy and standardized way, so let's not shoot ourselves in the foot
with complexity.
Regards,
Christer
-----Original Message-----
From: Elwell, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23. lokakuuta 2008 12:30
To: Christer Holmberg; Dean Willis; DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Cc: SIP IETF; Eric Burger; Paul Kyzivat
Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-info-events-00: multiple packages
per INFO
In reply to this whole thread, please bear in mind that we
had lots of
discussion about whether it would be worthwhile defining
this new INFO
mechanism, since existing applications are unlikely to
change and the
best we can hope for is that new applications will exploit the new
mechanism. Therefore we want to keep the mechanism as simple as
possible. The complexities of matching body parts to header fields,
dealing with cases where only some of the packages are understood,
etc.
are hardly likely to persuade people to implement the mechanism.
Please keep it simple.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
Christer Holmberg
Sent: 23 October 2008 08:17
To: Dean Willis; DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Cc: SIP IETF; Eric Burger; Paul Kyzivat
Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-info-events-00:
multiple packages
per INFO
Hi,
Why does putting two different packages in the same INFO
work better
than two different INFO messages each with their own
package usage? Is
there a desirable relationship that can be implemented
between the two
that we would otherwise lose?
We have one package per NOTIFY. Let's stick with one package
per INFO,
unless we want to go back to using mime-types as the only
distinguisher of packages.
I raised that issue in another e-mail.
But, never the less, I have no strong feelings on the
single versus
multiple package issue.
Regards,
Christer
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.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://www.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
