 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Victor, I
don’t have any objection to adding this, but would like to better
understand the use-cases/call-types that might use this extension. For example,
is this extension used within the scope of the basic call types & features
currently listed in section-1.1, or do I need to increase the scope? Does
everyone agree with this scope-increase? Also,
do you think support should be mandatory or optional? For example, do you think
the sending SBE to include the 'resource-priority' option tag in the Supported
header of every message? If support is optional, what should the draft
say about this extension? Thanks David Subject: Re: [Speermint]
draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines to a WG item? From: Victor
Pascual Avila <victor.pascual.avila at gmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:14:46 +0100 While "emergency calls" is not addressed in the document, IMHO itwould be useful to define whether the Resource-Priority header fieldshould be honored, specially in section 4.5.2Thanks,-VictorOn Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Jason Livingood<jason_livingood at cable.comcast.com> wrote:> At the last meeting we had a request to make> draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines-01 an official working group item.> I didn’t hear any loud objections to that but wanted to ask again here. If> you have any concerns about whether this should become a WG, please advise.>> Thanks> Jason> _______________________________________________> Speermint mailing list> Speermint at ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint>> |