At 04:26 AM 7/20/2008, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
Location Event Package:
I support the introduction of a new event package, different from
presence, to return
presence information.
There are several reasons to have a different event package, among them:
- LIS and Presence servers could be separate and then there would be
a need to specify communication
between them whenever a location request is received by a presence
server; or we should specify how
to route the location request to LIS instead of Presence
- LIS server can be present in a network that does not have any
Presence server; in this scenario LIS
server could be overloaded with Presence requests, it doesn't support
at all
- LIS bring Lawful requirements to meet, where a Presence server does
not.
so, having read the thread through Brian's message early on 7/22, I
have a simple observation Salvatore, you want the separate event
package to route the SIP SUBSCRIBE correctly, the rest is just
attempting to justify this core requirement.
I don't agree with your requirement - and Brian has already said why,
but let me add -- that if you have a SIP request routing problem, an
event package name differentiation shouldn't be relied upon to make
the routing decision.
