Re: [sipcore] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push-21: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) - the COMMENT issues

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

> On Jan 9, 2019, at 9:56 AM, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> ...
> 
>>>> Yeah, this seems like a pretty major architectural flaw in this design, tbh, one that is
>>>> remedied by just using RFC 8030-style notifications that contain content.
>>> 
>>> Other push notification services support content too, but we decided that we are not going to specify that for SIP push.
>>> 
>>> IF there comes a future case, where multiple SIP usages of push notifications have to co-exist, we can define usage of content (and e.g., define that SIP push is default).
>> 
>> Just a note: This came up in WG discussion and again during the AD evaluation. IIRC, the consensus was to not attempt to solve the issue in this draft.
>> 
>> That being said, I think it would be worth including a note that the potential exists and is being punted to the future.
> 
> Section 4.1 contains the following:
> 
>   "NOTE: If the SIP UA application wants to use push notifications for
>   other purposes than to trigger binding-refresh requests, it needs to
>   be able to distinguish between the different purposes when receiving
>   push notifications.  Mechanisms for doing that are outside the scope
>   of this specification.”

Ah, right. It might be worth adding something to the effect of “If a different push notification application is defined in the future, its specification will need to define how to do so.” before the last sentence.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer