Re: Comments on CPIM draft 03

> > 6. Section 3.4.3 and Section 3.4.4 refer to a subscription ID, but
> >    never define what it is.  For an unsubscribe operation, I assume
> >    the subscription ID is the transID of the subscription operation
> >    that established the subscription, while the subscription ID
> >    for a fetch operation is any transID not currently in use.  The
> >    assumptions on IDs must be explicitly stated.
> >
> >    Of course, we may want to be explicit about the role of
> >    identifiers, as suggested by Thanos in
> >
> >       http://www.imppwg.org/ml-archive/IMPP-WG/200207/msg00007.html
> >
>
> Yes, I agree that this needs to be clearer. For the time being it is
> probably simplest to just remove the term 'subscription ID' and use the
term
> 'transID' in its place, with the semantics you suggest above. Whether or
not
> we need a subscription ID really hinges on the degree to which CPIM is
> standardizing a practice for subscriptions. A subscription identifier
would
> probably only be meaningful in CPIM if the context of the whole
subscription
> operation in CPIM were a little more clear.
>

Having both transaction ids and subscription ids was agreed to and closed in
London (see the minutes here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01aug/51-17.htm)

Thanos
---
Athanassios Diacakis, CTO
Personity, Inc.
[email protected]





  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]