Subject: [Sip] Open issue in subnot etags

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:48:51 +0300

All,

There is a single open issue in 
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-00.txt

It relates to handling of list subscriptions. Specifically, what 
approach should we take in defining how conditional notification works 
in RLSs?  Seems there are roughly four different approaches:

    1.  Treat meta-information as independent of the actual resource
        state, don't apply conditional notification to meta-information
        at all.

    2.  Treat everything as a single resource, and update the etag
        whenever either meta or real info changes.

    3.  Have separate etags for meta and real information.

    4.  Ignore the issue.

If we think this is an issue this draft should address, then my 
preference would be to option #2. Otherwise, #4 would be the easiest 
given this issue is really specific to one event type only, and can be 
solved separately if needed.

Opinions?

If I don't hear anything from anyone, I guess I'll have to flip a coin 
to determine between #2 and #4. ;-)

Cheers,
Aki

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Avshalom Houri <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:48:27 +0300

I think that we should address the issue. Either 2 or 3 will be good
but 2 will be much more simpler.

--Avshalom

Aki Niemi <[email-masked]> 
08/06/2007 10:48

To
[email-masked]
cc

Subject
[Sip] Open issue in subnot etags

All,

    4.  Ignore the issue.

Opinions?

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: David Viamonte <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:54:41 +0200

Just my 2c...

I agree with Avshalom. IMMO, including the subscription to Presence lists case
(provided that this does not add too much overhead, and the solution
remains consistent) would lead to a more complete specification.

I also
like 2 and 3, and I agree 2 is simpler.

Hope it helps.

Regards,

David

Avshalom Houri escribió:

I think that we should address the
issue.
Either 2 or 3 will be good

--Avshalom

Aki Niemi
<[email-masked]>

08/06/2007 10:48

To

[email-masked]

cc

Subject

[Sip] Open issue in
subnot etags

All,

1.  Treat meta-information as independent of the actual
resource

state, don't apply conditional notification
to meta-information

at all.

2.  Treat everything as a single resource, and update
the etag

4.  Ignore the issue.

Opinions?

Cheers,

Aki