Re: draft-kuthan-sip-derive

>>
>>
>> It would require the UA's to change to support it if you want
>> to use it for Derive, but somehow I don't really believe a
>> significant market share of deployed UA's support the rfc4235
>> subscribe dialog-package yet either (despite Sipit's poll).
>> And I think we'd have uses for a logical call-id not in Call-ID.
> [JRE] In fact SIPIT showed 16% support for the dialog event package,  
> but
> there is no analysis of how many of these were UAs that supported the
> package as notifiers, as opposed to subscribers. My suspicion is that
> the population is small. Requiring support for something like a unique
> call identifier, plus a simple event package to confirm its presence,
> would probably be no more onerous than requiring support for the  
> dialog
> event package as notifier.
>
> John

Be careful how you use measurements like that 16%. Note that the same
measurement at the previous SIPit was 28%. My rough feel is that about
1/3 of the UAs around now have or are in the process of implementing
this package.

I can't clarify right now how much of those act as servers. Based on  
casual
conversations, I expect that we'll find its most of them. I'll ask in  
more detail
at my next opportunity.

RjS
_______________________________________________
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