Hi all Unfortunately, IETF's work on XCAP spec and related standards (pres rules, various extensions ...) was not fast enough and in some directions not broad enough. And OMA was pushed by industry to do something. If the standards defined by OMA had to be adopted by vendors they had to be frozen in some state and as vendors required to have several features standardized, OMA acted accordingly. That is why there are those oma specific AUID's and also namespaces. The OMA XDM 2.0 was planned to follow finalized IETF standards.
br, Martin On Jun 17, 2009 6:58pm, Iñaki Baz Castillo <i...@aliax.net> wrote: > 2009/6/17 Eduardo Martins emmart...@gmail.com>: > > If there is a group that has been working on making XCAP useful for > > everyone it is OMA for sure, with the XDM specification, not IETF or > > even 3GPP, which I think is the big issue of almost none adoption in > > SIP clients. > > > > Btw, I wonder what is the problem with a auid name, that actually > > follows the XCAP rfc guidelines for 3rd parties app usages. > Before your above explanation, I though that both auid names were a > different name for the same purpose. :) > PS: Could I be pointed to the XDM specification please? > -- > Iñaki Baz Castillo > i...@aliax.net> > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
