Michael, Yes, I guess some of the postings on this thread have hinted that it would be the same dialog usage. I suppose if the subscriptions are deemed to terminate at the time of the BYE transaction, then it would indeed by the same dialog usage. So it would appear to be within the letter of the dialogusage draft. However, one or two postings have suggested different.
John > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Procter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 19 October 2007 08:48 > To: Elwell, John; Adam Roach; Paul Kyzivat > Cc: sip; Brian Stucker > Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO > > John, > > My impression of the discussion so far is that using NOTIFY (or INTIFY > as Christer suggests) in this way would not constitute a new > dialog-usage. A new usage would imply periodic resubscription and > specific termination, whereas sending INTIFY within the context of the > INVITE-usage means that the lifetime issues can be ignored: terminate > the call, and INTIFY no longer has a context. > > This neatly avoids violating the letter of the dialogusage draft, but > you could probably argue that creating sub-usages of the INVITE-usage > isn't necessarily in keeping with the spirit of the draft... > > Regards, > > Michael > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Elwell, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 19 October 2007 07:41 > > To: Adam Roach; Paul Kyzivat > > Cc: sip; Brian Stucker > > Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO > > > > Adam, > > > > Now that you have reminded us of the dialogusage draft, perhaps it > > would > > be appropriate to remind people of the following from the abstract: > > "This memo argues that multiple dialog usages should be avoided. It > > discusses alternatives to their use and clarifies essential behavior > > for > > elements that cannot currently avoid them." > > In other words, while it will only be an Informational RFC, it seems > > to > > deprecate introduction of further dialog reuses. So if we were to go > > with NOTIFY, would this be a new dialog usage, and if so, > do we really > > want to go ahead with something in contradiction to the sentiment of > > that recently-approved draft? > > > > John > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Adam Roach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 19 October 2007 01:05 > > > To: Paul Kyzivat > > > Cc: sip; Brian Stucker > > > Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO > > > > > > Paul Kyzivat wrote: > > > > I mostly agree with Adam. The place where I take exception > > > is INFO. It > > > > is my impression that INFO was designed for use with INVITE, and > > so > > > > should be considered to be part of an invite-dialog-usage. > > > And Robert > > > > specified it that way in the dialogusage draft. > > > > > > You're correct. I had forgotten about that, and the dialogusage > > draft > > > does make it clear: INFO is part of the INVITE usage. RFC > > > 2976 predates > > > the current terminology, but a quick re-read does show that > > > it's pretty > > > clearly appropriate only for INVITE usages. > > > > > > /a > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
