RE: [Sipping] comments on draft-roach-sipping-callcomp-bfcp-00

This does not sound like a valid poll.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas.Froment@alcatel.fr [mailto:Thomas.Froment@alcatel.fr] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 8:49 AM
> To: Jeroen van Bemmel
> Cc: GARCIN Sebastien RD-CORE-ISS; Michael Hammer (mhammer); 
> Adam Roach; Jonathan Rosenberg (jdrosen); IETF Sipping List
> Subject: Re: [Sipping] comments on 
> draft-roach-sipping-callcomp-bfcp-00
> 
> About the usage of BFCP, chairs started a poll yesterday 
> during the meeting, but decided to stop it after 5/10 people 
> raised their hand to vote for "this is a good approach"...
> Then, Rohan(I think) asked "who understand  / is interested 
> by the problem"?, and since few people were responding, 
> nobody got the chance to vote for "this is NOT a good approach"...
> 
> So, maybe we can start a new poll on mailing list with 
> *interested* people?
> 
> Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
> 
> > That being said, I believe what is triggering the "academic" 
> > objections is the underlying model of 
> > draft-poetzl-sipping-call-completion-01: multiple 
> subscriptions to a 
> > single resource (the CCBS/CCNR queue) but a single 
> notification to the 
> > "first, non-suspended subscriber". That goes against
> > RFC3265 (in more than one ways)
> >   
> Can you clatify this statement? for me, this  is not 
> completely clear why...
> 

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP