Re: [Simple] Question on simple-event-list-07

[Adam Roach <adam at nostrum.com>]

Zisimopoulos, Haris, VF-Group wrote:

> In section 4.5 of draft-ietf-simple-event-list-07 it is stated that: 
>
> "The "state" attribute of each instance of a resource in the meta-
> information is set according to the state of the virtual subscription.
> The meanings of the "state" attribute are described in RFC 3265 [2]"
>
> Does this means that there is 1-to-1 mapping between the
> "Subscription-state" header of the NOTIFY request of the back-end
> subscription and the "state" attribute of the RLMI?

They are semantically equivalent. This isn't quite the same thing as 
having a one-to-one mapping, since back-end subscriptions can take the 
form of any arbitrary protocol (not just SIP). In any case, the actual 
linkage between any back end subscriptions -- even if they are SIP -- 
and the resource list subscription is a matter of implementation, not 
standardization. It is certainly *sensible* that you would simply pass 
these states through, but there may be other reasonable things to do as 
well.

> In that case how will be handled back-end subscriptions that do never get a NOTIFY?

The  most reasonable thing to do would be to return an RLMI document in 
which the "<resource>" element corresponding to that failed subscription 
contains no "<instance>" elements. See, for example, the entries for 
"sip:ed at dallas.example.com" and "sip:adam-friends at stockholm.example.com" 
in step 3 of the example in section 6.

/a

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple