Subject: RE: [Simple] 200 vs. 202

From: "Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:29:31 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Stucker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 2:18 PM
To: Paul Kyzivat; [email-masked]
Cc: 'Robert Sparks'; 'James Undery'; Jonathan Rosenberg; 'Moran Tim
(NET/Dallas)'; 'Ngo, Dai (c)'; 'Brazier Lachlan'; 'simple'
Subject: RE: [Simple] 200 vs. 202
.... 

If we leave the stake in the ground that presence information should not be
aggregated at the watcher, because policy is difficult at best to apply in
this situation, then we need to ensure one of two things:

- Making sure that there is one, and only one, PA (which is what ICQ, AOL,
MSN, etc. have been doing for a long time now).
[Roy, Radhika R, ALARC]  Are you suggesting this simplified solution
because, as Paul has pointed out, there is a fundamental difference the way
forking works in INVITE and SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY method? Is this solution due to
the forking problems (not to be satisfactorily addressed in SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY
method)?

- Making sure that if there is going to be more than one PA, either the
results are always aggregated somewhere in the network (for policy
decisions) or that all of the PA's are kept in sync (which is extremely
difficult to do).
[Roy, Radhika R, ALARC]  This is what the end results may look like. I
wonder how can we communicate among multiple PAs to synchronize states? We
may need to change the forking behavior in SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY if the present
suggested method is not satisfactory.

...

_______________________________________________
simple mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/simple