Subject: RE: [Simple] Extend UA Capabiity Extension to PIDF

From: Goix Walter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:26:23 +0200

I'm not sure I get your point, whether you propose to use the User
Agent: header as is (1), "modified" for transporting a UAProf URI (2),
or if you see some external mechanism that knows the matching between
User-Agent: header value and UAProf-type of capabilities related to SIP
(3)...

If (1), I personally see the User-Agent: header as something related to
SIP UA "binary" module name and version (for vendor's use only, or for
opaque upgrade from an operator when the version is considered as
obsolete). I think the info here is also related to device caps (screen
size, color for max img size when sending an image or things like that).
The User-Agent may not provide that info unless (3), but then you may
add complexity in your network if you need to provision this matching
(version/UAProf) on many NEs. The matching itself may also be tricky in
some situations.

IMHO, I think having this info provided directly by the UA itself could
be helpful and simplier for Application Servers or proxies to process a
request based on such info.

walter
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aki Niemi [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:59 PM
> To: ext Goix Walter
> Cc: Helsen Frank; Jonathan Rosenberg; Paul Kyzivat; SIMPLE WG
> Subject: RE: [Simple] Extend UA Capabiity Extension to PIDF
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 19:04, ext Goix Walter wrote:
> > I also agree that UAProf-type of information should not be carried 
> > along with presence information. I would rather prefer some kind of 
> > Profile: header in SIP requests that points to an OMA-like 
> UAProf URL 
> > which also describes SIP caps in a more complete way than 
> RFC3840 does 
> > (I don't think that RFC has been thought to define such info)
> 
> How about using the User-Agent header field?
> 
> Cheers,
> Aki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom Italia S.p.A.

====================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please send an e_mail to 
[email-masked]. Thank you
====================================================================

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

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:54:52 +0300

> (version/UAProf) on many NEs. The matching itself may also be tricky in

Which I guess leaves you with option (2). There doesn't seem to be much
in the way of putting information there that goes beyond the name and
version of the binary. In web browsers this information many times
contains OS, and even CPU information.

Having said that though, if the intention originally was to have CC/PP
in SIP, then it would've been best to say so to begin with...

> request based on such info.

I agree, but whether you need something beyond callee-caps and
User-Agent is then another question. 

Also, I think some information actually does belong in presence. For
example, it might be worthwhile expressing maximum attachment size in a
mailto tuple. Depends what you would like to do, and who the primary
consumer of this information would be (e2e vs. e2m).

Cheers,
Aki