Dean Willis wrote:
On Oct 23, 2008, at 9:33 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
Dean Willis wrote:
On Oct 23, 2008, at 6:07 AM, 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"?
Two packages in the same dialog makes sense. For example, one might
want to use location-push and image-push during a call..
Different sets of packages allowed at different times during the
lifespan of the dialog doesn't make nearly as much sense. The
simplest model is to agree one set of packages "up front", and use
only that set during the dialog.
No. I always have to remind people:
a 3pcc transfer can result in needing to renegotiate things in the
dialog that remains.
That's a dialog renegotiation, for all practical purposes a new dialog.
You're also negotiating new codecs, etc.
Doing INFO package renegotiation is just a part of it.
That does not create a new dialog, it just updates the existing dialog.
Its done using reINVITE or UPDATE. And that is exactly the currently
proposed means of changing the set of packages in mid dialog.
OTOH, I think we messed up with 3PCC, too. It's just another bottomless
pit of complexity that we should have avoided.
If we had invented Invite/Replaces early enough it could have replaced
reINVITE. But that is water over the dam.
Paul
_______________________________________________
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
