Subject: [Sip] target dialog draft

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:43:23 -0500

Here is a URL for the target dialog draft that I wrote in response to 
Rohan's email on the app interaction draft. It defines a way for a REFER 
to define a target dialog with which it is associated:

http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-rosenberg-sip-target-dialog-00.txt

Thanks,
Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Director, Service Provider VoIP Architecture   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

_______________________________________________
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: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:55:40 +0000

Jonathan,

Section 3:
"Typically this is the case when the dialog-initiating request would have
otherwise been sent over an existing dialog, but was not since this
specification allows the request to be sent on a new dialog instead."
This is a bit convoluted. The reason for not using the existing dialog is
that it would introduce problems with dialog reuse etc., as stated earlier
in the document. The mere existence of this target dialog spec is not in
itself sufficient reason for using a new dialog.

In the next paragraph:
Change "sent out a dialog" to "sent outside a dialog".

Join and Replaces headers have "to-tag" and "from-tag" with corresponding
text saying how these relate to the local tag and remote tag respectively at
the recipient. Would it not be a good idea to stick to the same parameter
names as Join and Replaces? Likewise the style of BNF is slightly different
from that used in Join and Replaces. Would alignment be sensible? I don't
have a strong opinion on these - just a suggestion.

What use do you envisage for this new header in an UPDATE request (for which
it is marked optional in figure 4)?

The title of figure 4 seems wrong.

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Jonathan Rosenberg
> Sent: 08 March 2005 01:43
> To: IETF SIP List
> Subject: [Sip] target dialog draft
>