Subject: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-state-02

From: Purcell Michael-QA3001 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 14:31:31 -0700

Is there a time lime when the sip-state will be formalized into an RFC, or has there been little interest?

		Thanks Mike Purcell

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  http://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: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:04:56 -0600

Yes, no, and maybe . . .

There are two drafts that provide roughly similar functionality -- the "SIP
State" draft, and the "SIP Cookies" draft. The SIP State draft is an
outgrowth of the DCS work. The SIP Cookies draft is basically just a
cut-and-paste from the HTTP cookie specification, just as much of of the SIP
syntax was similarly adapted.

We (IETF) have been properly notified by of IPR claims against both drafts
by AT&T and 3Com, and all of the implementers that I know of are held up in
trying to figure out the implications of those claims. The manyfolks and
media-auth drafts have similar issues, but are also high priority for 3GPP.

I believe that the authors of State recently said that they had some
suggestions for improving the Cookies draft, and might find the resulting
syntax compatibility with HTTP to be beneficent.

However, until it looks like somedbody is likely to actually implement the
resulting spec, we have no real constituency for the work, and it's likely
to get deferred in favor of other work which has better traction.

Speaking strictly from personal opinion (I'm onot a lawyer and don't play
one on TV)  I think it is more likely that the Cookies draft will proceed,
as the general syntax is likely to be protected by prior art  (it is just
cut and paste from HTTP specs). However, the way that one USES a cookie is
probably subject to process patent claims, and that's where it gets
interesting -- look at the HTML-shopping-cart lawsuits of the last few
years.

How about some feedback from the list here? Do we have a clear preference
for state vs cookies?

--
Dean

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:54:14 -0800 (PST)

I guess I don't see what the point of changing
this is if the interesting uses of state are still
protected by IPR. 

?

		Mike