> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 12:30 AM
> To: Jonathan Rosenberg
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'sip (E-mail)'
> Subject: [SIP] Re: More arbitrary limits
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan,
> in principle I agree with you.
> However, I would like to know what exactly you connotate by
> 'barf' - does
> it mean the UA crashes, or does it mean it
> gracefully declines ?
Not sure. Either way the call is not established.
>
> I have worked with people on the embedded side who simply
> cannot allocate
> more than Xk for SIP messages and
> by policy, their application rejects any message greater than this, by
> returning a message too long bad response( I think its a
> 413). While this
> may not be desirable, at times it can be a practical limitation.
Well, I would encourage them to set X to at least 2 or 3 for now. SIP
messages are getting bigger all the time.
In any case, that is different from the arbitrary limit imposed on a
particular header. In this case, requests were being rejected (or causing
the system to crash or something) even though the total length was within
reasonable bounds.
>
> If the UA crashes, I would say its certainly a no-no. If it
> declines by
> saying 'sorry, I can't handle your message', then its certainly
> a scenario that should be still in line. I would say that
> this approach is
> still inter-operable .
Not really. Interoperability means that communications is successfully set
up. It has not been here.
-Jonathan R.
---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg 72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist First Floor
dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FAX: (973) 952-5050
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com
