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

[Jari Urpalainen <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 23:12 +0200, ext Robert Sparks wrote:
> 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).
> 
Sorry, i did not read the text that carefully (rather only Dean's
question)

My previous comment was about the default mode if client won't give any.
In 04 it was "xcap-patching" but it can be any of those, and Dean
proposed "no-patching" which is fine.

> 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
> 
Right, the last sentence in 4.3 is _wrong_. The subscribers MAY
implement any of the modes, but it doesn't need to support patching at
all. The same applies to the notifier with the exception that it MUST
implement xcap-component subscriptions. The last sentence of the first
chapter of 4.3 is also wrong since the client could only subscribe to
xcap component changes, so it'd better to remove the last part ", as all
subscribers are required to support that mode."

br, jari