On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 15:42 -0500, Dale Worley wrote: > On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 09:41 -0500, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > > Well, since the draft only talks about correlating dialogs, the issue > > with MESSAGE only comes when using MESSAGE in-dialog. > > > > While it isn't *forbidden* to use MESSAGE in a dialog, that technique > > was rejected by the WG for session mode IM. Also, the last I knew, at > > least Microsoft's use of MESSAGE in-dialog also used a special m-line in > > SDP to negotiate doing so. > > > > Establishing a dialog without media, to be used for exchanging MESSAGE > > hasn't been formally defined. It would be problematic - some kind of > > signaling would be needed to indicate that the intent is to exchange > > MESSAGEs. If you have that, then it could probably be used to combine > > the media. Certainly if you have a dialog with no media you can make > > another offer to add voice or video. > > But if you tagged each of a long series of out-of-dialog MESSAGE > requests with the same context-id, they'd all get displayed in the same > communication context at the recipient, even if each MESSAGE had a > unique call-id. (In this, I'm modeling such a MESSAGE as "a dialog of > one request", which I think is more or less implicit in SIP.) Ah, yes... In the -01 version, since you can't correlate a dialog with a dialog that is terminated, you can't use the trick of forcing each MESSAGE to be correlated with each other MESSAGE, since their "dialogs" last only an instant. Dale _______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP
