Alan, It appears that everything is in the draft. What do you propose to drive this to an interoperable solution?
Thanks, Martin -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Johnston Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:47 PM To: Derek MacDonald Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BLISS] bliss-MLA-req-01: Simpler <joined-dialog> approach 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 _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
