Sal, > -----Original Message----- > From: sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx > [mailto:sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of salvatore loreto > Sent: 19 December 2008 15:58 > To: Paul Kyzivat > Cc: SIPPING > Subject: Re: Comments > ondraft-loreto-sipping-context-id-requirements-00 > > Hi Paul, John and all, > > I agree that party A could use 3pcc to making transparent for party B > the fact that it is using separate devices for different media, and > then making everything into one dialog for B; > however there could be situation, and indeed there are use > cases where > it would be preferable not using a centralized and heavy mechanism as > 3pcc but instead having something more distributed and lighter. [JRE] 3PCC would be one possibility. Non-SIP communication between the two devices might be another (depending on whether rendez-vous capability of SIP is necessary or not for this purpose). > > About your concern on what happens if party B wants to transfer the > "call", in the case where party A asked party B to establish > a correlation > between two dialogs, my first answer is that yes it should be > expected > to do *two* transfer - one for each dialog, and I don't see any > problem in this. Of course I can be wrong in this, and > probably I am, as > usual. [JRE] I see this as a huge problem, expecting the remote endpoint to undertake complex procedures for something that benefits the other end. John _______________________________________________ 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
