Subject: [Sip] Comments on the draft-wu-sipping-floor-control-00.txt

From: "Konstantinos Katrinis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:02:07 +0200

Dear all,

referring to the draft "Use of SIP and SOAP for conference floor control", I
've been asking myself whether it is handy to use SOAP as the language to
exchange floor control related information(commands/events).My alternative
would be to define additional SIP method(s) and use some text-based
representation language in the payload for the floor control
information(extended SDP).
	My argument is that a ready made (XML) parser would be too much for the
user agent (regarding performance).Please express your against arguments, if
I am missing any.

Thanks in advance,
Kostas Katrinis
ETH Zuerich

_______________________________________________
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: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:47:36 -0400

User agents that support presence will already need to support XML.
Maybe in the future, they'll need it for SDPng. There are a number of
light-weight XML parsers that do not consume the resources that, say,
Xerces does. Generation of XML is even easier, since you can do that via
sprintf, with a locally-stored template. I doubt that having half a
dozen different text formats for different types of data is particularly
helpful in terms of overall complexity and correctness.