Subject: [Sip] a modest proposal for update

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:11:02 -0400

Folks,

As I was integrating comments on UPDATE for the final rev for iesg, I
begin to rethink our decision on keeping the HERFP stuff (155) as part
of this draft. The current usage really specifies to behaviors; they
even have different ways of indicating support for them (Allow: UPDATE
and Supported/Require: update). So, I would like to propose that we
excise the HERFP stuff, and proceed with UPDATE alone as a mechanism for
modifying session parameters. 

Here are some of the pros/cons:

pros:

  + cleaner separation of what is probably two separate things
  + we can revert to using the Reason header, since that aspect of it
would go in the HERFP document, not in UPDATE baseline
  + the HERFP stuff is a little immature still. I would prefer to have
some implementation experience with it before going to RFC.
  + the HERFP stuff is less time sensitive; we need UPDATE for the
purposes of session modification (manyfolks needs it)

cons:

  - somewhat major change at a fairly late point in the game, although
it should be fairly easy to excise

Comments?

-Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.            72 Eagle Rock Avenue
Chief Scientist                         First Floor
dynamicsoft                             East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                 FAX: (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                  PH:  (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.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