I'm going through -07 in detail now to figure out the next step, and
just went back
through the email threads to make sure nothing got dropped.
I think we still have a rough edge related to what's below (and I
don't understand Jari's response
now that I've read the draft carefully).
My read is that the default was intended to be the simplest (and
required to implement) mode of
"no-patching" and that we just had a single typo in the first
paragraph of section 4.3. The last
sentence in that first paragraph should say "no-patching" rather than
"xcap-patching" and
the conflict that Dean points to below is resolved.
RjS
On May 27, 2009, at 5:07 AM, Jari Urpalainen wrote:
1) What's the default notification mode supposed to be? "xml-
patching" is listed as the default and fail-safe in some text, but
"no-
patching" is also described as the singular "must implement" mode. It
seems to me that if a mode is the default if no mode is specified,
then that mode had better be the default.
This question is a primary source of confusion in Section 4.3, and
I'd
appreciate some feedback. This whole section got a lot of edits, you
may want to usea difftool.
for implementers this is no big deal, although you MUST know which is
the default if the parameter is missing, anyways it can be anyone of
those, so i'm fine with this technical change.
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implement...@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipp...@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
