Subject: RE: [Simple] 200 vs. 202

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 20:45:27 -0400

-----Original Message-----
From: Moran Tim (NET/Dallas) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 11:33 AM
To: 'ext Paul Kyzivat'; Jonathan Rosenberg
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Simple] 200 vs. 202
>
>While 5.7 paragraph 6 indicates that the Notifier can send whatever, the
first paragraph 
>of 5.10 states "Each of these [PA] will respond with a 202 response to the
SUBSCRIBE."  
>The later does not imply whatever can be sent..

You are looking at an older version of the specification. This was true in
-02. -03 has a 2xx where 202 appears, and has thus fixed this problem you
have found.

>
>Given your comments are correct, then I would suggest changing the 1st
paragraph of 5.10 
>so as not to restrict what can be sent by the PA (After all - can the
Notifier (PA) even 
>tell it is a 5.7 subscribe vs. a 5.10 (forked) subscribe?). On a side note,
the doc uses 
>Notifier for section titles wherein the text uses e.g. PA. Is this
semantically correct? 
>Are we really intending to talk about PA Notifiers vs. other type of
Notifiers? Don't 
>mean to be picky but I'm not sure if this is intentional, and thus adds
explicit meaning, 
>or just loose use of terminology.

The section titles follow the section titles in sip-events. A Notifier = PA;
that is, a PA is a notifier for the presence package. I will state this in
the terminology section.

-Jonathan R.

---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com