Subject: RE: [Simple] ad-hoc list subscriptions

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:32:32 -0600

Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

> (3) its a CID URI, referring to the list in the body of the request

That has the potential to make routing very difficult. If the first proxy
that you hit doesn't know what the cid scheme means, then things won't work.
It seems to me that the most flexible approach would be something like:

SUBSCRIBE sip:[email-masked];list=cid:[email-masked] SIP/2.0

Nice thing about this is that you could also do something like:

SUBSCRIBE
sip:[email-masked];list=http://xcap.example.com/services/presence-lists/u
sers/bill/fr.xml SIP/2.0

/a

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:08:38 -0500

I think what you are proposing is a hybrid between approach (3) and my
approach (1):

> (1) its a well-known service URI, for example,
> sip:[email-masked], where the server knows that for any
> subscriptions to sip:adhoclist@<any domain>, it means that the
> subscription has its contents in the body

That is, we are using a well known service URI, but the list to use 
for that subscription is obtained by dereferencing a parameter in the 
URI (or possibly in a header field).

-Jonathan R.

Adam Roach wrote:

> That has the potential to make routing very difficult. If the first
> proxy that you hit doesn't know what the cid scheme means, then
> things won't work. It seems to me that the most flexible approach
> would be something like:
> 
> SUBSCRIBE
> sip:[email-masked];list=cid:[email-masked] SIP/2.0
> 
> sip:[email-masked];list=http://xcap.example.com/services/presence-lists/users/bill/fr.xml
>  SIP/2.0
> 
> /a
> 

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:08:38 -0500

-Jonathan R.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:26:18 -0600

I like this approach alot.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:26:18 -0600

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:41:31 -0500

I agree Adam's suggestion is somewhat attractive.

OTOH, while my initial reaction to Jonathan's #3 was "that's bonkers", 
it has started to grow on me. It has the advantage that the UAC doesn't 
need to know what server will process the request. It is a potential 
problem if the first hop proxy doesn't know how to route it, but that is 
a solvable problem - a Route header in the request to send it somewhere 
that does.

	Paul

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:41:31 -0500

Paul