Subject: [Sipping] conf=comments on draft-burger-sipping-netann-05

From: Orit Levin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 18:19:54 -0400

Hi Eric!
I have a number of questions/comments on the draft:

1. I understand that the draft purpose is to become an informational RFC.
What stage of the process are we at?
2. The draft uses MUST, SHOULD, MAY, etc. Is it the right language for an
informational RFC? (Also, please, take a look at the section 5.1 which says
"This section is informative" :-)
3. Section 2. "Mechanism" discusses the need for instantiation of a service
and the corresponding syntax as "the concatenation of the service name and
an optional service instance identifier, separated by an equal sign". It
also brings up "multiple, separate conference sessions" as an example for a
service instantiation.
I endorse this direction and find it completely compatible and fitting the
more general approach of the draft-sipping-cc-conferencing.
4. That said, in section 5 "Conference Service" a different syntax is
defined!!! It introduces a single "conf-id" parameter to be inserted as a
global SIP URI parameter - not in the USER portion of the URI... I find this
approach dangerous (even as informational) because it doesn't add any
functionality (to specifying a "service instance" in the USER part of the
URI) and will lead to interoperability problems (because it is different
from the approach taken by both the conferencing-framework and the
cc-conferencing WG documents).

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Orit Levin
Chief Architect
RADVISION
Phone: +1.201.6896330

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