I think this problem can be solved with a 2-way exchange. Introducing a
3-way exchange means that the "delayed offer" needed for 3pcc can't be
supported in a straightforward way. IMO that is a strong argument
against it.
Paul
Dean Willis wrote:
On Oct 17, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Why does there need to be a 3-way exchange?
Can the 200-ok have Events listed that weren't offered? (why would it
bother to? The offerer didn't say it could do them.)
So isn't the ACK always a mirror image of the 200ok, in which case why
bother?
Unless you had competing Event types, where only one should be used,
or couldn't do some combo of them. And then this concept is getting
bloated, and will end up looking like SDP capabilities negotiation.
The only argument I can see is -- it prevents race conditions. Don't
send an event until the ACK.
And I'm still stuck on your last question, which is what application
use-case really needs directionality, other than as a nit?
Yeah, me too. Or to rephrase, what application needs "I want to send . .
." rather than "I understand . . ."
--
dean
_______________________________________________
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
