[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       sip-implementors
Subject:    [Sip-implementors] draft-ietf-simple-partial-publish - composition rules
From:       "Anat Angel" <anatang () radvision ! com>
Date:       2005-09-26 12:15:57
Message-ID: E7D8D1A37669BA428A72828A4DD999AD0A37F9 () rvil-mail1 ! RADVISION ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi

 

I have a question regarding composition rules:

 

Does a server need to treat a UA that published its state in a pidf-diff
method (inside MODIFY request), as if it is more updated in ALL the
information it previously published? That means to consider this
publisher more updated about information that he didn't publish in this
particular request as well.

 

Or does the server need to treat it as if only the patch is more
updated?

 

The significance of this question is best explained in the following
scenario:

 

The sip server gets 2 INITIAL PUBLISH requests to the same presentity.

The first one (called A1) include 3 tuples with id's: tuple1, tuple2,
tuple3.

The second one (called B and comes after A1) include 2 tuples with id's:
tuple1 and tuple2.

 

The server sends a first NOTIFY with full-pidf of tuple1 & tuple2 from B
(because it's more recent) and tuple3 from A1.

This is based on approach that information inside a more recent PUBLISH
is more updated.

 

Now another PUBLISH is received which is MODIFY to the first PUBLISH
(we'll name it A2). It is pidf-diff document. This PUBLISH include only
a <replace> to tuple1.

 

What should now be the content of a pidf-diff NOTIFY sent by the server?

Is it only tuple1 (identical to the received PUBLISH with pidf-diff
document)?

Or should it also include tuple2 from A1, because we assume that
publisher A is more updated about the situation of the presentity?

 

Regards,

Anat Angel.


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]