Subject: RE: [SIP] comments on draft-sparks-sip-cc-transfer-00.txt

From: "Fox, Mike" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:31:28 -0700

I read the draft, and I am left wondering exactly what aspects (or features)
of call control the Transfer method adds which can not be accomplished using
existing SIP methods. The draft cites that:

"...these changes facilitate recovery of failed transfers and
   clarify state management in the participating entities"

Looking back over the SIP email there are additional points the author and
others make in favor of the Transfer method, but I am (as I'm sure others
are) unsure if these alone justify implementation of a new method. I believe
the draft, discussions, and group thinking would all benefit from a thorough
comparison of call control models and features made possible using the
Transfer method vs. existing SIP methods (such as BYE Also).

Many thanks,
Mike Fox

_______________________________________________
SIP mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/sip

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:58:18 -0500

> Transfer method vs. existing SIP methods (such as BYE Also).

I was hoping that somebody else would point out that there IS no existing SIP
BYE Also method. That came from a draft which has expired and I believe is
considered abandoned by the authors . . .

--
Dean Willis