On Oct 22, 2007, at 8:37 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
So, I think the next question is whether there should be a single event package definition mechanism for this new approach and for the 3265 type of events, or if these should be entirely disjoint. I realize existing event package definitions won't be applicable without at least some tweaks, and not all event types are suitable for both mechanisms. But I do think there are event types that are suitable for both mechanisms (e.g. dtmf and dialog) and it would be better if we didn't require independent definitions for them in both contexts.
I also favor a single class of event package registrations, and leaving it to each event package to whether and how it works in each mode.
-- 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
