Subject: [Simple] SETDATA draft

From: "David Simons" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:29:43 -0700

I keep seeing references to a SIP SETDATA request type.  Is there a
draft for this or is this just REGISTER with a new name?

David J. Simons
SDE Lead
Window RTC

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 00:45:33 -0400

-----Original Message-----
From: David Simons [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 3:30 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Simple] SETDATA draft

>I keep seeing references to a SIP SETDATA request type.  Is there a draft
for this or is 
>this just REGISTER with a new name?

Part of the proposal for presence authorization was to upload policy docs to
the server. A few ways were discussed, including non-SIP (HTTP), or SIP,
using REGISTER, or perhaps a new method, dubbed SETDATA. The idea for using
something beside REGISTER is that the usage of REGISTER for uploading stuff
is a bit of a stretch, particularly when you consider that the soft-state
characteristics of the body are totally different than the Contact headers.
Furthermore, a REGISTER request with a CPL might fail because the CPL script
was bad, or because the Contacts were illegal or something. The fact that
the method conveys two things that can fail independently, is a sign that
they might need to be split.

Now, this is controversial, and involves the SIP wg. However, it is
something we need to figure out. Given that the overall new authorization
framework is agreed upon (and I think there is consensus on that), this is
probably the biggest open issue remaining within that proposal.

-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