> -----Original Message----- > From: Salvatore Loreto [mailto:salvatore.loreto@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 25 January 2009 11:18 > To: Elwell, John > Cc: Paul Kyzivat; SIPPING > Subject: Re: > Commentsondraft-loreto-sipping-context-id-requirements-00 > > 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. [JRE] We are trying to standardise a SIP mechanism to party B. That does not necessarily limit us to SIP between the two devices of party A. For example, MGCP or MEGACO might be suitable. 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
