Cullen, Rohan, I am concerned about the value and practicality of section 3.4 of draft-ietf-sip-outbound-10, and would like to understand the reasoning behind the text "(and not a subsequent flow with the same addresses)", as this is not discussed in the mandatory text and this characteristic is not provided by the example flow token generation algorithm in section 5.2.
In detail, section 3.4 states the following: "When the Edge Proxy receives a registration, it needs to create an identifier value that is unique to this flow (and not a subsequent flow with the same addresses) and put this identifier in the Path header URI." I presume that reason that subsequent connections between identical addresses are treated as different flows is that the remote address and port may have been reallocated to a different device. Therefore, after a connection failure, a request to the UA routed using the flow identifier could go to a different device. Is this text trying to protect against this unusual situation (which would be rejected by the UA), or is there a rather more practical reason for blurring the layers? Why should a recovered connection be viewed differently from a previous one, as long as the UA is still contactable over that flow? Many thanks, Jonathan
_______________________________________________ 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
