Hi Robert, I have 3 comments / suggestions w.r.t this ID.
Comment-1 ---------------- Should there be any change with respect to receiving CANCEL in Accepted state? Hitherto the UAC was getting a 481/CANCEL in such cases. Now we will get 200/CANCEL with no effect on IST. The reason for this question is backwards compatibility, however I can myself argue both ways on this one. What do you think? Comment-2 ----------------- In section 6.7 of the ID about the Timer-L you say - "and the amount of time this (or any downstream) UAS core might be retransmitting the 2xx while waiting for an ACK. " How does 2xx retransmission timer affect the choice of Timer L? Comment-3 ----------------- Shouldnt the Timer L be set to T4 which represents the amount of time the network will take to clear messages between client and server transactions? Since 2xx is sent reliably anyway, IMHO we do not need to link Timer L to Timer B. Thanks Nasir Khan BEA Systems Inc. On 6/27/07, Robert Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Everyone - I've put together a proposal for addressing the spec bug captured at http://bugs.sipit.net/show_bug.cgi?id=769 Please read through http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sparks-sip-invfix-00.txt and comment. RjS _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
-- Discuss SIP Servlets at http://groups.google.com/group/sipservlets/
_______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
