Francois Audet | 1 Apr 02:15 2008

Re: Comparison of retargeting proposals

There are existing implementations of History-Info in the field.

It's not rocket science.

And I don't see why introducing something else will be simpler. It will just
be extra complexity. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces <at> ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Juha Heinanen
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 05:48
> To: Christer Holmberg
> Cc: sip <at> ietf.org; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals
> 
> Christer Holmberg writes:
> 
>  > However, I still fail to understand how Target would be 
> more "complex"
>  > than e.g. History-Info. 
> 
> christer,
> 
> ANY solution for anything must be MUCH simpler than 
> history-info, which is far too complex by itself.
> 
> i haven't seen anyone fully implement history-info and most 
> likely that is because of its complexity.  if you are now 
> going to invent some other mechanism that is as complex or 
> even more complex, it has no change in real world.
(Continue reading)

Francois Audet | 1 Apr 02:17 2008

Re: Comparison of retargeting proposals

History-Info + New-Target > History-Info

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces <at> ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 05:33
> To: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS; Dale.Worley <at> comcast.net; sip <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I agree with Martin.
> 
> However, I still fail to understand how Target would be more "complex"
> than e.g. History-Info. 
> 
> Regards,
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors <at> cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping <at> ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip

Juha Heinanen | 1 Apr 06:09 2008

Re: Comparison of retargeting proposals

Francois Audet writes:

 > There are existing implementations of History-Info in the field.

are those among the 10 most common UAs and proxies?

-- juha
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors <at> cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping <at> ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip

Jari Urpalainen | 1 Apr 09:03 2008
Picon

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-xcapevent-01

responses inline

Miguel Garcia wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Here are some comments to the XCAP event package, in sequential order.
>
>
> - Introduction, 2nd paragraph. Indicate that the subscription can be 
> applied to "several documents". There is a reference to RFC 4918 that 
> I don't get it. I don't understand what is this reference, so better 
> remove it.
well the document uses the collection as defined by rfc4918 (and with 
similar semantics as well).
>
> OLD:
>    This memo defines an
>    "xcap-diff" event package that, together with the SIP event
>    notification framework [RFC3265] and the XCAP-diff format
>    [I-D.ietf-simple-xcap-diff], allows a user to subscribe to changes in
>    an XML document, and to receive notifications whenever a change in an
>    XML document takes place. It is also possible to subscribe to
>    documents within some collection [RFC4918], the notifier provides
>    then the documents where the user has read privilege.
>
> NEW:
>
>     This memo defines an
>    "xcap-diff" event package that, together with the SIP event
>    notification framework [RFC3265] and the XCAP-diff format
(Continue reading)

Hadriel Kaplan | 1 Apr 09:15 2008

I-D Action: draft-kaplan-sip-four-oh-00.txt

Greetings,
Given today's relative importance in history - being the date Swiss farmers had their largest spaghetti
crop harvest, Sweden introduced color television, the USSR connected Kremvax to Usenet, the Alabama
state government changed the value of Pi to 3.0, and much more - we took it upon ourselves to write up and
submit a new Internet-Draft for an update to RFC 3261 (and a bunch of other RFCs): P2P2PSIP, a.k.a. SIP v4.0.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kaplan-sip-four-oh-00.txt

Abstract:
This document defines a new and improved version of SIP, which tastes great and is less filling than the
previous SIP.  This draft updates all previous and future RFCs related to SIP in SIPPING, SIMPLE, MMUSIC,
BEHAVE, and so on.

-hadriel
p.s. I apologize for the length of it - it was only 41 pages long originally, but my co-author demanded it be
expanded to 42 pages (for obvious reasons), and thus it's a bit bloated.

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors <at> cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping <at> ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip

Miguel Garcia | 1 Apr 09:27 2008

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-xcapevent-01

Inline too, only points that require further discussion.

Jari Urpalainen wrote:
> responses inline
> 
> Miguel Garcia wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> Here are some comments to the XCAP event package, in sequential order.
>>
>>
>> - Introduction, 2nd paragraph. Indicate that the subscription can be 
>> applied to "several documents". There is a reference to RFC 4918 that 
>> I don't get it. I don't understand what is this reference, so better 
>> remove it.
> well the document uses the collection as defined by rfc4918 (and with 
> similar semantics as well).

So, RFC 4918 defines collection as:

    Collections: The ability to create sets of documents and to retrieve
    a hierarchical membership listing (like a directory listing in a file
    system).

If the definition is correct for this document, I recommend to add a
note in Section 3 saying: This document reuses the following term from
RFC 4918: Collections.

>> - Introduction... More than an Introduction, the third paragraph is an 
>> Overview of Operation. Perhaps this paragraph should be promoted to 
(Continue reading)

Jari Urpalainen | 1 Apr 10:10 2008
Picon

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-xcapevent-01

Miguel Garcia wrote:
> Inline too, only points that require further discussion.
>
> Jari Urpalainen wrote:
>> responses inline
>>
>> Miguel Garcia wrote:
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Here are some comments to the XCAP event package, in sequential order.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Introduction, 2nd paragraph. Indicate that the subscription can be 
>>> applied to "several documents". There is a reference to RFC 4918 
>>> that I don't get it. I don't understand what is this reference, so 
>>> better remove it.
>> well the document uses the collection as defined by rfc4918 (and with 
>> similar semantics as well).
>
> So, RFC 4918 defines collection as:
>
>    Collections: The ability to create sets of documents and to retrieve
>    a hierarchical membership listing (like a directory listing in a file
>    system).
>
> If the definition is correct for this document, I recommend to add a
> note in Section 3 saying: This document reuses the following term from
> RFC 4918: Collections.
>
ok.
(Continue reading)

Hans Erik van Elburg | 1 Apr 10:07 2008
Picon

Re: Comparison of retargeting proposals

The point is that History-Info does not solve the problem so something
new is needed anyway.

And proper use of History-Info is rocket science as Dale has shown.

/Hans Erik

-----Original Message-----
From: sip-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Francois Audet
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 2:16 AM
To: Juha Heinanen; Christer Holmberg
Cc: sip <at> ietf.org; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
Subject: Re: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals

There are existing implementations of History-Info in the field.

It's not rocket science.

And I don't see why introducing something else will be simpler. It will
just be extra complexity. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Juha Heinanen
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 05:48
> To: Christer Holmberg
> Cc: sip <at> ietf.org; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals
> 
(Continue reading)

Miguel Garcia | 1 Apr 12:56 2008

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-xcapevent-01

inline

Jari Urpalainen wrote:

>>>> - The draft should say which of the 3 XCAP-Diff processing models is 
>>>> mandatory to implement. I suspect the draft assumes that all 3 are 
>>>> mandatory to implement in both the server and the clients. So, it 
>>>> should say it. But isn't that in contradiction with the following 
>>>> sentence in Section 4.7?
>>>>
>>>>    It is RECOMMENDED to implement the XML-Patch-Ops processing on a
>>>>    server.
>>>>
>>>> How can one implement the xcap-patch diff-processing model without 
>>>> the XML-Patch-Ops?
>>> clearly this needs some clarification. Yes you don't need to support 
>>> _any_ patching at all (in the server) as the notifier may decide to 
>>> send only references to docs and only indicate element/attribute 
>>> subscriptions. The diff-processing parameter is thus a hint to the 
>>> notifier. This is to allow naive implementations or where 
>>> transmission optimizations  are not important. But the parameter 
>>> value "no-patching" is not a hint, the notifier MUST NOT provide 
>>> patches then.
>>
>>
>> You said that the server dos not need to support patching. So, what
>> happens if the subscriber selects diff-processing=xcap-patching and the
>> server does not support it? How will the developer be ready in its code
>> to react to it?
>>
(Continue reading)

DRAGE, Keith (Keith | 1 Apr 13:13 2008

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-xcapevent-01

(As SIP WG chair)

This WGLC ended yesterday, and as far as I can see, we have only
received one set of comments, implying that only one member of the WG
has reviewed the document.

Two requests:

-	If you have reviewed the document, and consider it so perfect
that you have no comments, please indicate this to the list. 

-	If you can find time to review the document, please send the sip
chairs a mail indicating that you are willing to do so, and when you
expect to do this by.

Finally, if you have reviewed the document, but have not yet got around
to sending your comments, please post them as soon as possible.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces <at> ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 11:19 PM
> To: IETF SIP List
> Subject: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-xcapevent-01
> 
> (As SIP WG cochair)
(Continue reading)


Gmane