Here's an issue Robert has raised that we should have some discussion on
before sending this on the IESG.
The Shared Appearance draft defines a "shared" event parameter.
The question is whether this should instead be a SIP feature tag used in
a Supported and Require header fields.
I've pulled out some text from the draft, RFC 3265, and a summary of how
it is used.
What do people think?
Thanks,
Alan
- - - - -
From draft-bliss-shared-appearance:
Section 12.1
This specification defines a new event parameter 'shared' for the
Dialog Package. When used in a NOTIFY, it indicates that the
notifier supports the shared appearance feature. When used in a
PUBLISH, it indicates that the publisher has explicit appearance
information contained in the message body. If not present in a
PUBLISH, the Appearance Agent MAY assign an appearance number to any
new dialogs in the message body.
From RFC 3265:
4.4.2. Event Package Parameters
If parameters are to be used on the "Event" header to modify the
behavior of the event package, the syntax and semantics of such
headers MUST be clearly defined.
Details on the usage:
- Appearance Agent discovery of non-Shared Appearance UA during
subscriptions. A NOTIFY sent without <appearance> elements does not
necessarily mean the UA does not understand or support the extension,
but a NOTIFY sent without the Event:dialog;shared does indicate this.
- Sent by a UA and interpreted by an Appearance Agent to request no
appearance number be assigned to a dialog (PUBLISH sent without
<appearance> attribute but containing Event: dialog;shared
_______________________________________________
BLISS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
