On Apr 20, 2007, at 8:37 AM, Dostal, Pavel wrote:
All,
As a technical contact from OMA PAG WG, I wonder whether any official
feedback to the "OMA LS 178 on XCAP diff-event" is planned to be
provided by IETF to the OMA PAG WG.
Regards,
Good question. I posted the following on the SIPPING list on March
21, and I haven't seen a conclusion in SIPPING yet. Thanks for waking
us up.
Several people from the IETF community met as a design team on
March 21, 2007 during IETF 68 in Prague to discuss OMA liaison
statement 178 on XCAP diff-event. This LS relates to OMA's
requirement for an event package for use in monitoring changes to
non-configuration XML documents. The document draft-urpalainen-sip-
xcap-diff-event-01.txt had been previously submitted with the
intent of meeting these requirements.
Attendees at this discussion included:
Jari Urpalainen
Krisztian Kiss
Robert Sparks
Dan Petrie
Cullen Jennings
Rohan Mahy
Sumanth Channabasappa
Jonathan Rosenburg
Dean Willis
The conclusion of the meeting was to recommend some changes in the
current sipping-config document and to recommend development of a
separate xcap-config document tailored to OMA's requirements (while
still meeting general IETF applicability goals).
Changes to the sipping-config document include adding the
application identifier and error responses previously identified in
design team discussion.
The new xcap-event package will need to support several
requirements referred to in draft-urpalainen-sip-xcap-diff-
event-01.txt, including subscribing to a xcap document or a sub-
element of an xcap element. It will also need to support deferred
or aggregated notification. The design team recommends starting
with the text in draft-urpalainen-sip-xcap-diff-event-01.txt, but
has not agreed to the current re-synch mechanism therein which is
expected to require some further work. This package could be
developed either as a WG effort (probably within the SIPPING
working group) or as an area-director sponsored individual
contribution. The design team feels that the general applicability
of this specification is sufficiently broad that it should be
pursued as a standards track effort, even though RFC 3325 and 3427
allows informational documents to define event packages of this sort.
If this recommendation is accepted or declined we will need to
respond with an appropriate LS to OMA informing them of our intent.
They would like an answer within the next week or so.
--
Dean Willis
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
