W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Input on request for link relation

From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:26:47 -0500
Message-ID: <4AAA9667.4030408@nostrum.com>
To: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
CC: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>, jpanzer@acm.org, Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>, Atom-Syntax Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 9/11/09 11:52 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
> But SIP is not a polling protocol is it? Is there something about SIP
> that is more "monitor-ish" than pubsubhubbub that necessitates a new
> relation name? And if so, how do I determine which relation name
> should be used for servers that connect to Dojo clients to send
> notifications?

SIP uses RFC 3265 for these kinds of things. RFC 3265 allows for both 
polling and long-running subscriptions (although the polling isn't used 
anywhere near as often as the long-running subscriptions).

The intention of draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-02 was that the 
"monitor" link relation was to be used for both polling *and* passive 
mechanisms. I don't want to get hung up too much on the term "monitor" 
and what it may or may not imply about who initiates the transaction 
that results in someone knowing about a change.

Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 18:27:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:51 UTC