Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01

On Mar 2, 2008, at 7:42 AM, Aki Niemi wrote:

>
> On pe, 2008-02-29 at 22:08 -0500, ext sip-bounces@ietf.org wrote:
>>   Then that's bad. How does the notifier then know which PIDF to  
>> pick in
>>   presence subscriptions?
>>
>> Especially if it's not a presence subscription.  But seriously, is
>> this proposal confined to presence events?  I see no such text.
>
> Of course it is not. But clearly presence won't work correctly, if the
> notifier doesn't know which URIs route to it, i.e., which resources it
> is responsible for. I assume this to be the case for most applications
> of SIP events. Can you give an example of a currently specified event
> package that doesn't require this?

I have yet to figure out how a multiuser UA  (including an event  
server) is supposed to function if:

1) The To: field does not indicate the user being targeted, which  
happens if a UAC-side proxy retargets, as in the case of a speed-dial  
service, and

2) The request-URI does not indicate the user being targeted, which  
happens in many cases including when the UAS-side proxy does contact- 
routing AND the user-part of the contact isn't differentiated per- 
user. It also occurs with some load-balancers. That's part of why we  
don't specify bulk registration in RFC 3261, but instead recommend  
using routing table entries.

--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip