Hi Mary,

I am not comparing Diversion header and History-Info header. In fact, I don't 
care if Diversion header is not standartized. The problem is that it has been 
implemented and not only by one implementor. I just try to recommend a solution 
to a real issue towards the standardized solution (like for other cases as H323 
interworking).
History-Info header has been standardized for many reasons, after many time and 
discussions. It is the normalized solution and this is not the subject of the 
draft. The work on 4244bis/target-uri is necessary and good but a separate 
topic.

Regards,
Marianne 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Mary Barnes [mailto:[email protected]] 
Envoyé : vendredi 13 mars 2009 15:21
À : MOHALI Marianne RD-CORE-ISS; [email protected]; Francois Audet
Cc : [email protected]
Objet : RE: [BLISS] TR: New Version 
Notificationfordraft-mohali-diversion-history-info-01

Hi Marianne,

And, the standardization of this document could well take longer than it will 
take to complete 4244bis. Per my list of pros/cons, to be correct and useful, 
this document is effectively standardizing Diversion header, which is actually 
more work than what's being done in the 4244bis and target-uri docs. So, you're 
waiting either way. 

Regards,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
[email protected]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 5:13 AM
To: [email protected]; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BLISS] TR: New Version
Notificationfordraft-mohali-diversion-history-info-01

Hi,
 
I don't understand why this is premature. On the contrary, this is late.
It is long time that Diversion header is implemented and now there are 
implementations based on History-Info header (RFC4244)(Here I'm just talking 
about call frowarding service). RFC4244 will still be as it is and making the 
History-info header interwork with the Diversion header will still be needed as 
RFC4244 is implemented. 
In the other hand, the work in progress on 4244bis/targetURI could takes time 
and interworking with Diversion header will may be also needed with the "new 
History-Info". 

Regards
Marianne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois Audet [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:57 PM
> 
> It is premature to make this a working group draft or publishing it 
> until we have progressed on 4244bis/targetURI.
_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to