Re: [Sip] Draft ietf-sip-xcapevent revised, many open questions

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

I'm going through -07 in detail now to figure out the next step, and  
just went back
through the email threads to make sure nothing got dropped.

I think we still have a rough edge related to what's below (and I  
don't understand Jari's response
now that I've read the draft carefully).

My read is that the default was intended to be the simplest (and  
required to implement) mode of
"no-patching" and that we just had a single typo in the first  
paragraph of section 4.3. The last
sentence in that first paragraph should say "no-patching" rather than  
"xcap-patching" and
the conflict that Dean points to below is resolved.

RjS

On May 27, 2009, at 5:07 AM, Jari Urpalainen wrote:

>> 1)  What's the default notification mode supposed to be? "xml-
>> patching" is listed as the default and fail-safe in some text, but  
>> "no-
>> patching" is also described as the singular "must implement" mode. It
>> seems to me that if a mode is the default if no mode is specified,
>> then that mode had better be the default.
>> This question is a primary source of confusion in Section 4.3, and  
>> I'd
>> appreciate some feedback. This whole section got a lot of edits, you
>> may want to usea difftool.
>>
> for implementers this is no big deal, although you MUST know which is
> the default if the parameter is missing, anyways it can be anyone of
> those, so i'm fine with this technical change.