Subject: RE: [Sip] New ID related to voicemail and history requirements

From: Paul Drew <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:11:47 -0000

Cullen,

This draft seems to address the same requirements as
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levy-sip-diversion-07.txt, which
specifies a Diversion header to contain the target and reason parameter.

Is there a preferred working group direction to address this issue?

In addition the Referred-By header specified in draft-ietf-sip-referredby-03
addresses a similar related issue.

Regards,

Paul

------------
Paul Drew
Product Manager
MetaSwitch

mailto: [email-masked]
http://www.metaswitch.com
Tel: +44 (0) 1244 305220  Fax +44 (0) 1244 312422
MetaSwitch is a division of Data Connection (DCL)

-----Original Message-----
From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 19 October 2003 10:18
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Cullen Jennings
Subject: [Sip] New ID related to voicemail and history requirements

I have submitted a new draft that deals with meeting a subset of the
"history" requirements for sending calls to voicemail systems. Until it
shows up in the archive, you can find it at:

http://www.employees.org/~fluffy/ietf/
       draft-jennings-sip-voicemail-uri-00.txt

Or 

http://www.employees.org/~fluffy/ietf/
       draft-jennings-sip-voicemail-uri-00.html

Cullen

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:37:16 -0800

Well, it's always hard to speak for the whole WG :-)  The history work has
been adopted as a WG item - the others have not. One of the key things
holding history back is that some people thought an idea using URI was more
appropriate.  I carefully wrote down these URI idea as best I could in
draft-jennings-sip-voicemail-uri so it can be discussed and compared to
history. Then the WG can decide what to do. Options include History, both,
none. 

I could be completely wrong in my next statement but, it is my personal best
guess that the SIP WG is highly unlikely to make draft-levy-sip-diversion a
WG item for a standards track RFC. I think they are more likely to decide
that text encoding was a bad idea, deprecate forking, then deprecate INVITE
and replace with two methods called OFFER and ANSWER. Statements like "over
my dead body" don't bode well for a draft getting WG consensus.

We do need a solution to the set of problems these drafts address. I really
hope we choose one, anything, some time soon.

Cullen