There is still some text in 6.3 which mentions dialog id conflicts; is that just stray text?
-Derek On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Alan Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Derek, > > It is already in the draft that way - I thought of this when I did the > schema. > > Thanks, > Alan > > > > Derek MacDonald wrote: > > Section 6.1.3 describes a <joined-dialog> element which uses the id > > attribute of the dialog element to identity which dialogs are joined. > > Unfortunately, the id attribute is only unique for a UA instance. This > > requires that the state compositor MUST be prepared to offer different > > notification documents(for the same dialog) for the UAs that have > > conflicting id attributes. > > > > An alternate approach would be to not use the id portion of the dialog > > element to identity a joined dialog. It would still have call-id, > > local-tag, remote-tag and direction. This eliminates the need for a > > state compositor to provide different views; in fact, no composition > > will be required within a dialog-info element. > > > > I am not sure why we didn't do that in the first place. > > Interestingly, I couldn't find any text in rfc4235 around id attribute > > collisions. It seems they lose meaning when different UAs sharing an > > aor are composed in a central state agent. > > > > -Derek > > _______________________________________________ > > BLISS mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
