 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At 01:57 PM 7/24/2008, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
James M. Polk wrote: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 returnpresence 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 howto 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 LISserver 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.Hi James, I do think when we standardize a protocol we should consider all the scenarios in this case both the case in which Presence Server and LIS are built together but also the case where they are two physically separate servers.
I don't understand your comment. The decision in IETF69 considered both scenarios, and the WG made its decision. Do you believe we need to dredge through that decision again? I haven't heard anything new wrt that decision, therefore, I believe that such a recent decision should stand without having to go over again and again
Sal
_______________________________________________ Geopriv mailing list Geopriv at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv