Subject: Re: [Sip] Draft ietf-sip-xcapevent revised, many open questions

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:12:54 -0500

I'm going through -07 in detail now to figure out the next step, and  
just went back
through the email threads to make sure nothing got dropped.

I think we still have a rough edge related to what's below (and I  
don't understand Jari's response
now that I've read the draft carefully).

My read is that the default was intended to be the simplest (and  
required to implement) mode of
"no-patching" and that we just had a single typo in the first  
paragraph of section 4.3. The last
sentence in that first paragraph should say "no-patching" rather than  
"xcap-patching" and
the conflict that Dean points to below is resolved.

RjS

On May 27, 2009, at 5:07 AM, Jari Urpalainen wrote:

>> 1)  What's the default notification mode supposed to be? "xml-
>> patching" is listed as the default and fail-safe in some text, but  
>> "no-
>> patching" is also described as the singular "must implement" mode. It
>> seems to me that if a mode is the default if no mode is specified,
>> then that mode had better be the default.
>> This question is a primary source of confusion in Section 4.3, and  
>> I'd
>> appreciate some feedback. This whole section got a lot of edits, you
>> may want to usea difftool.
>>
> for implementers this is no big deal, although you MUST know which is
> the default if the parameter is missing, anyways it can be anyone of
> those, so i'm fine with this technical change.

---

From: Jari Urpalainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:28:13 +0300

> now that I've read the draft carefully).
Sorry, i did not read the text that carefully (rather only Dean's
question)

My previous comment was about the default mode if client won't give any.
In 04 it was "xcap-patching" but it can be any of those, and Dean
proposed "no-patching" which is fine.

> the conflict that Dean points to below is resolved.
Right, the last sentence in 4.3 is _wrong_. The subscribers MAY
implement any of the modes, but it doesn't need to support patching at
all. The same applies to the notifier with the exception that it MUST
implement xcap-component subscriptions. The last sentence of the first
chapter of 4.3 is also wrong since the client could only subscribe to
xcap component changes, so it'd better to remove the last part ", as all
subscribers are required to support that mode."

br, jari