Re: INFO

On 9/26/07 3:34 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> So I want to send you Info relating to a session but
the details about what
> info are in the content-type.  Now I agree that
content-type is really not
> the appropriate header for such generically,
specifically because it
> describes the body content, which may be ambiguous with
usage of the body.
>   

Thank you! That's the key point I'm trying to make.

> One
> could argue Info is essentially a Notify, except in a
subscription
> implicitly created by, and tied to the dialog from, an
Invite.
>   

Now you're just *trying* to push my buttons. 

There are certain predictable objections that I would raise
to such a 
characterization; take them as given.

The key point here is that NOTIFY will inherently be
associated with an 
event package, which provides enough information for the
recipient to 
know what to do with the body. INFO, lacking such
information, is 
ambiguous. And, as before, the hardest problem isn't
interpreting what 
is sent to you; it is indicating what *can* be sent to you.

/a


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Roach [mailto:adamnostrum.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:53 PM
> To: Hadriel Kaplan
> Cc: Stucker, Brian (RICH1:AR00); sipietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO
> 
> On 9/26/07 3:34 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> > So I want to send you Info relating to a session
but the 
> details about 
> > what info are in the content-type.  Now I agree
that 
> content-type is 
> > really not the appropriate header for such
generically, 
> specifically 
> > because it describes the body content, which may
be 
> ambiguous with usage of the body.
> >   
> 
> Thank you! That's the key point I'm trying to make.

And I agree with your key point then if this is what you
were trying to
draw out earlier to me.
> 
> > One
> > could argue Info is essentially a Notify, except
in a subscription 
> > implicitly created by, and tied to the dialog
from, an Invite.
> >   
> 
> Now you're just *trying* to push my buttons. 
> 
> There are certain predictable objections that I would
raise 
> to such a characterization; take them as given.

Noted.

> 
> The key point here is that NOTIFY will inherently be 
> associated with an event package, which provides enough

> information for the recipient to know what to do with
the 
> body. INFO, lacking such information, is ambiguous.
And, as 
> before, the hardest problem isn't interpreting what is
sent 
> to you; it is indicating what *can* be sent to you.

Yes, INFO is different in that respect from NOTIFY. You
don't expect a
NOTIFY for something you never explicitly sent a request for
that scoped
it to an event package...except REFER. But the semantics of
REFER are
such that it's implied.

I think the key point being made on the other side is that
there's
nothing special about an event package. It is an identifier
that
disambiguates the NOTIFY. In some cases other header values
could serve
the same purpose (i.e. content-type w/ DTMF). 



> 
> /a
> 


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Roach [mailto:adamnostrum.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:53 PM
> To: Hadriel Kaplan
> Cc: 'Brian Stucker'; sipietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO
> 
> On 9/26/07 3:34 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> > So I want to send you Info relating to a session
but the details about
> what
> > info are in the content-type.  Now I agree that
content-type is really
> not
> > the appropriate header for such generically,
specifically because it
> > describes the body content, which may be ambiguous
with usage of the
> body.
> >
> 
> Thank you! That's the key point I'm trying to make.

Ahh, but the key point I was trying to make is for the one
use case I care
about, namely application/dtmf, it is not ambiguous.  It is
no more
ambiguous than kpml.  The only ambiguity right now is I
can't tell if you'll
accept it and want it.  That's a solvable problem. 


> > One
> > could argue Info is essentially a Notify, except
in a subscription
> > implicitly created by, and tied to the dialog
from, an Invite.
> >
> 
> Now you're just *trying* to push my buttons. 

dtmf buttons?   But, no,
I wasn't trying to push your buttons.

 
> The key point here is that NOTIFY will inherently be
associated with an
> event package, which provides enough information for
the recipient to
> know what to do with the body. INFO, lacking such
information, is
> ambiguous. And, as before, the hardest problem isn't
interpreting what
> is sent to you; it is indicating what *can* be sent to
you.

Sure, but we could (if we had to) define the same concept
for INFO as
sub-not has in that regard.

-hadriel



_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip