From: Dean Willis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> if a watcher misses the "defg" eTag "89" phase at step 2for some reason. It sees state 1, then it sees state 3. If the eTag is allowed to repeat, it doesn't know it missed a state change.
Well, there is a design question: Is the goal to allow the subscriber update its current knowledge of the state to match the current state, or do we in addition want the subscriber to know reliably that there have been state changes (even if their exact content cannot be known)? You seem to think that knowing of state changes is essential, whereas the draft considers that to not be a design goal. I think to progress this discussion, we have to determine whether reliable knowledge of the existence of state changes is a useful feature. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
