Subject: Re: [Sipping] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sipping-service-examples-11.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 19:47:30 -0500

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>

   > I agree that the draft/call flow you have indicated in the document for 
   > MOH does not show dynamic pay load but based on experiences I have had 
   > with various vendors, there are dynamic payloads involved in a majority 
   > of calls thus making this example flow un-usable in most real world 
   > examples.

   > I also agree there needs to be a broader discussion w.r.t 3PCC 
   > and dynamic pay load types. However, in the absence of such 
   > guidelines, I am not sure depicting call flows that violates RFC 3264 
   > behavior makes sense.

   The example as it stands doesn't violate anything.

   I gather your issue isn't that this example is wrong, but rather that it 
   isn't realistic, and that if it were made realistic then it would be 
   apparent that it would be likely to be wrong. Is that right?

   So you would like to see everybody using dynamic payloads in this
   example?

I'd say that if an example *depends* on not using dynamic payloads to
work correctly, it should be noted in the example.

Dale

_______________________________________________
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