Subject: [Sipping] Refer-To context parameter

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:10:02 -0800

Hi Jonathan,

Judging from how quiet the list has been on this topic, I can  
understand your decision.  Unfortunately, Alan Johnston, Dan Petrie,  
Robert Sparks, and I (the folks who posted with opinions on this topic  
back in November) came to consensus on a different approach which is  
already documented in Robert's dialog usage draft.

The technique is described in draft-sparks-sipping-dialogusage-01.txt

Unless you or anyone else has strong objections, I suggest we go  
forward with the technique described in dialog-usage.

thanks,
-rohan

> It seems like there is general consensus for this approach. As such, I  
> have gone ahead and submitted an update to the framework. Until it  
> appears in the archives, you can pick up a copy at:
>
> http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-ietf-sipping-app-interaction- 
> framework-04.txt
>
> This includes comments made during WGLC.
>
> This document is now ready to go to IESG.
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan R.

_______________________________________________
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

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:34:40 -0500

Rohan,

In the interests of moving forward I don't really have a problem with 
your alternative. Its really just a syntactic transformation of whats in 
app interaction today; same information, just in a header instead of a 
Refer-To parameter. I suppose thats a little more general in that it 
might be reusable outside of REFER.

What is not clera is the proposed plan for moving forward. Is it to:

1. update app-interaction to define the header field currently described 
in the dialog-usage draft?

2. reference dialog-usage from app-interaction, move dialpog-usage to 
the standards track?

I think that (1) makes more sense given that (2) would add a new 
dependency and seriously delay things, needlessly I think.

If the folks involved in this discussion can respond (in a more timely 
fashion, AHEM), and agree to this, I will attempt to rev app interaction 
again before Monday AM. Whats one more I-D to do by Monday when I've 
already get 13 to go....

-Jonathan R.

Rohan Mahy wrote:
>> It seems like there is general consensus for this approach. As such, 
>> I  have gone ahead and submitted an update to the framework. Until it  

-- 
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