My take is that we were talking about an implicit "start" and "end" based on the life of the INVITE dialog usage.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 14:35 > To: Christer Holmberg > Cc: Michael Procter; Dean Willis; Audet, Francois > (SC100:3055); IETF SIP List > Subject: Re: [Sip] Francois' counter to INFO (was Re: What > are we arguing aboutwhen we say INFO?) > > > > Christer Holmberg wrote: > > > I haven't thought about this proposal in detail yet, but we > would also > > need to take the the dialog-reuse spec (which proposes NOT to mix > > dialog > > usages) into consideration. But, if we somehow could bind the > > subscription lifetime to the dialog lifetime I think that at least > > some of the issues in that spec would be solved. > > The lifetime of a dialog isn't an independent variable - it > ends when the last dialog usage ends. > > If you are really talking about implicit *subscriptions*, > then you either must explicitly end them, or else define > their *implicit* end in terms of something that has an > explicit endpoint. > > I expect that you are talking about something that either > shares the invite dialog usage, or else a distinct dialog > usage that implicitly starts and stops concurrently with the > invite dialog usage. > > Paul > _______________________________________________ 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
