John,
Elwell, John wrote:
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).
[SAL] I see that there could be non-SIP communication, however here we
are trying to standardize
a SIP mechanism.
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.
[SAL] I don see that procedures so complex to be a huge problem, but
that is a matter of opinion
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
