Yeah, this is quite obscure (but I think Jiri's description is overly complex).
I *think* that what we should say somewhere is the following: - If this specification is supported by the registrar (as per presence of the Require: outbound in the 200 response to the Registration, then the UAC MUST do keep-alives as per section X.Y. - In the keep-alive section, we could explain that while the keep alive described in this section were defined to be used by environments that supports this specification (Dhuh), using keep-alives in environments registration as per this specification are not supported (explain how this is detected), is allowed if there is EXPLICIT knowledge that it is supported (as per the current text). > -----Original Message----- > From: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 13:59 > To: Dean Willis; Dean Willis > Cc: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); Rohan Mahy; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip] keep-alive backwards compatibility in > draft-ietf-sip-outbound-12.txt > > I have to admit this was too complicated for me too > understand. So basically UAC advertises downstream its > semi-transport-level keep-alive capability (CRLF/STUN) by the > way of app-level negotitation (reg-id), the downstream entity > (say a proxy-based load-balancer) signals its support for it > by adding PATH/ob, and the registrar UAS signals > load-balancer's support by Require:outbound? > > So specifically if the registrar doesn't turn PATH/ob into > 200/Require/outbound, client shall not do ping-pong > keep-alive to its load-balancer? > > If that's what it is, I understood the point now. > > Can someone explain to me what is the benefit of mixing > transport-level natping functionality with application-level > capabilty negotiation? My appologies if this has been > discussed in past years of outbound, but it is really hard to > understand for me. > > Thanks! > > -jiri > > > At 19:04 06/03/2008, Dean Willis wrote: > > >I think we had a stale address for Jiri on this thread. > > > >He's been using [EMAIL PROTECTED] recently, and I'm getting no > DNS hit on > >fokus. > > > > > > > >Dean Willis wrote: > >> > >> On Mar 5, 2008, at 7:00 PM, Francois Audet wrote: > >> > >>> Jiri, > >>> > >>> On p.15 it is explained that the UAC looks at the presence of the > >>> Require: outbound field falue in a response to registration. > >> > >>> This is to ensure that both the registrar and the edge proxy are > >>> compliant with this spec. The keep-alive would only be sent if > >>> present. > >>> > >> > >> I'm going to have to go study this, because ordinarily Require has > >> nothing to do with the edge proxy (which would have been > only looking > >> at Proxy-Require), and it's pretty much meaningless in responses > >> anyhow -- it's only processed in requests AFAIK. > >> > >> I think we're trying to catch fish with a bullet again. > >> > >> -- > >> Dean > >> > > > > -- > Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ > > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
