Re: draft-ietf-sip-info-events-00: multiple packages per INFO

I also agree it is too extreme to restrict to one package per dialog.
But as I stated earlier, I'm fine not defining multiple packages per INFO.

	Paul

Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
>> I don't have a problem agreeing with that.
>>
>> Note that buried somewhere in this thread was a question of whether we
> had a use case for multiple packages per dialog, or can we simplify even
> further.
> 
> I don't think we should go that far, because that could become very
> restrictive.
> 
> For example, assume I want to use INFO packages e.g. for DTMF during the
> call setup, and then other INFO package(s) for something else during the
> call.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:51 AM
>> To: Elwell, John; Dean Willis; DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>> Cc: SIP IETF; Eric Burger; Paul Kyzivat
>> Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-info-events-00: multiple packages 
>> per INFO
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I agree with John. Let's keep it simple. If allowing multiple packages
> 
>> in a single INFO causes issues, let's forget about it.
>>
>> The whole idea with this is to allow people using INFO to do so in an 
>> easy and standardized way, so let's not shoot ourselves in the foot 
>> with complexity.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Elwell, John [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: 23. lokakuuta 2008 12:30
>> To: Christer Holmberg; Dean Willis; DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>> Cc: SIP IETF; Eric Burger; Paul Kyzivat
>> Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-info-events-00: multiple packages 
>> per INFO
>>
>> In reply to this whole thread, please bear in mind that we had lots of
> 
>> discussion about whether it would be worthwhile defining this new INFO
> 
>> mechanism, since existing applications are unlikely to change and the 
>> best we can hope for is that new applications will exploit the new 
>> mechanism. Therefore we want to keep the mechanism as simple as 
>> possible. The complexities of matching body parts to header fields, 
>> dealing with cases where only some of the packages are understood, 
>> etc.
>> are hardly likely to persuade people to implement the mechanism. 
>> Please keep it simple.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>> Behalf Of
>>> Christer Holmberg
>>> Sent: 23 October 2008 08:17
>>> To: Dean Willis; DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>>> Cc: SIP IETF; Eric Burger; Paul Kyzivat
>>> Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-info-events-00: multiple packages 
>>> per INFO
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>>> Why does putting two different packages in the same INFO
>>> work better
>>>>> than two different INFO messages each with their own
>>> package usage? Is
>>>
>>>>> there a desirable relationship that can be implemented
>>> between the two
>>>
>>>>> that we would otherwise lose?
>>>> We have one package per NOTIFY. Let's stick with one package
>>> per INFO,
>>> unless we want to go back to using mime-types as the only 
>>> distinguisher of packages.
>>>
>>> I raised that issue in another e-mail.
>>>
>>> But, never the less, I have no strong feelings on the single versus 
>>> multiple package issue.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Christer
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
> 
_______________________________________________
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