Subject: Re: [sipcore] (Info event) Questions aboutWillingnessandCapabilitynegotiation

From: "DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:27:06 -0400

Neither will be deployed

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: Linyi TIAN <[email-masked]>
Cc: 'SIPCORE' <[email-masked]>
Sent: Mon Sep 28 15:44:06 2009
Subject: Re: [sipcore] (Info event) Questions aboutWillingnessandCapabilitynegotiation

On Sep 28, 2009, at 3:11 AM, Linyi TIAN wrote:

>>
>> You CAN NOT use the I-P mechanism to negotiate what you are going  
>> to send
> in a 200
>> OK response.
>
> [Linyi TIAN] I never said I will use I-P to do this.
>
> I mean for this administration feature we may not use this I-D at  
> all if
> Recv-Info is mandated. So please read my question again:
>
>> [Linyi TIAN] Hard coded is one way. For this configuration feature,  
>> is SIP
>> INFO framework the best mechanism to be used? Is there any other
>> alternatives?
>
>

I'm guessing from my weak understanding of the proposal that either  
the SIP configuration framework or session policy framework might be  
closer to meeting your goals than an INFO package would be.

See:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipping-config-framework-15

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-06

Specifically, if you are talking about a timer that is valid only for  
the current INVITE-initiated session, then the session-associated  
policy part of the session-policy draft would be most likely to be  
fruitful.

If the timer is persistent across multiple sessions, then INFO would  
be completely wrong, and either the session-independent policy model  
of the session-policy draft might work, or the configuration framework.

Or you could do what IETF and 3GPP probably should have done all  
along, which is to develop a straightforward HTTP/XML configuration  
model for SIP devices.

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
sipcore mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:38:26 -0500

On Sep 28, 2009, at 3:27 PM, DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS wrote:
> Dean said:
>> the SIP configuration framework or session policy framework might  
>> be closer to meeting your goals than an INFO package would be.
>
> Neither will be deployed
>

Well, there is that little detail. However, reading these drafts might  
get us closer to an understanding of the actual goal here, and could  
suggest a way to make it happen that is better than relying on  
spurious-INFO-messages-from-heaven.

So the question is: Is the problem Linyi is working to solve more like  
one of these drafts than it is like what we think INFO packages were  
meant to do?

--
Dean