Dale Worley wrote:
I'm getting a bit confused by this discussion, and I think part of the
problem is terminology:
Let's avoid using the word "match" unless we mean a process which has
the usual properties of "match": (1) If A matches B, then B matches A.
(2) If A matches B, then A and B are considered to some degree to be the
same thing. Thus, if two requests have the same Via branch parameters,
they "match" because they are (should be) identical. And if two
requests have the same call-id and tags, then they "match" because they
are part of the same dialog. (And that relationship is symmetric.)
I think what people want is the concept "references". If A references
B, then B does not necessarily reference A. Thus, a dialog event
package references a dialog, but the dialog does not reference the
dialog event package.
I believe that we intend for two message to have the same Session-Id if
and only if they are legs of the same dialog (in the sense that each leg
was generated by a B2BUA as a continuation of another leg). (Actually,
that should be "dialog set", as created by one out-of-dialog request.)
This is still very fuzzy to me.
If a B2BUA (B) is doing 3pcc:
|------ C
|
A ------ B
|
|------ D
and it first connects A to C, and later transfers the call to D, will A
and C and D all have the same Session-Id?
Then take same picture, but make B be a conference focus, to which A, C
and D are all connected. Will they ever have the same Session-Id?
Also, how are dialog event packages supposed to work? Is it expected
that they will be extended to contain Session-Ids?
Thanks,
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
