Re: [BLISS] Shared Appearance Issue: Simplify No Appearance Allocation Request
Raj Jain <rj2807@gmail.com> Fri, 16 April 2010 15:59 UTC
Return-Path: <rj2807@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bliss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bliss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ABA53A6983 for <bliss@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 08:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.930, BAYES_20=-0.74]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jrbFagjxyGlJ for <bliss@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 08:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E2213A6817 for <bliss@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 08:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb40 with SMTP id 40so533147wyb.31 for <bliss@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 08:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hYTQao/mnSoOErp6wt/cEsE0dMoFCSWBr7pweeO02/Q=; b=EH+OMaTcYGQ+TD/fGmPjNDQaD62jir2Ve65gGBbWdI6IalVnl6tSLhY3r78zFgHi3j SceE6XEuKESlWT/Ja9/Rq9+1/INKugQhIP9VqH6H3SSYSv+qWENYj6Fk7PSGiwek1pkf +GzXvv9V31lE/RanWt9YxIOQUDfAFNy8LFaUs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=naogi6VvFlUGTXCm4xd9IQCeTl5zhU34lHiDmEVpFi5uoupiGbbYQFPs44MxxeyU7j GMJb8sfUwPrpNsYZQ61wjkzY8ZY4Vif2F4+UoinJ7nXsTv0Vkj6dsU/+P8RhBY1WHGHh n50rmST8jE+t1+7iP+UUQBGAuYBkCNyJZUyt0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.27.79 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 08:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4B93180B.9030703@gmail.com>
References: <4B93180B.9030703@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:59:23 -0400
Received: by 10.216.85.79 with SMTP id t57mr1379866wee.132.1271433563610; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 08:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <z2m1971b0b61004160859yf6f49f93nff9c0a04283fd86a@mail.gmail.com>
From: Raj Jain <rj2807@gmail.com>
To: Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: BLISS <bliss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [BLISS] Shared Appearance Issue: Simplify No Appearance Allocation Request
X-BeenThere: bliss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Basic Level of Interoperability for SIP Services \(BLISS\) BoF" <bliss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss>, <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bliss>
List-Post: <mailto:bliss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss>, <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:59:36 -0000
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > There is currently a bit of complexity in the draft caused by a > requirement for a UA to send an INVITE using the shared AOR in the From > but not have an appearance number assigned. Effectively, this dialog is > not part of the shared appearance group. We do this using the 'shared' > Event parameter. > > There are two ways we could simplify this: > > We could probably remove the 'shared' event parameter if we defined a > convention for the <appearance> element to say 'don't assign an > appearance'. For example, we could chose a value such as "-1". A > publish with appearance=-1 would be asking the AA not to assign an > appearance number. This would simplify things. I don't think not assigning an appearance number will work. If a Shared AOR has multiple appearances, then I believe a specific appearance number will need to be assigned and sent in the NOTIFY to other UAs. This is how other UAs will know which appearance lamp to light. > If we were looking to simplify things further, perhaps we could just > meet this requirement by saying a different From URI should be used. I prefer this approach. If a UA is not capable of sending the appearance number, then it doesn't understand the shared-appearances feature anyway. Raj