I'm not saying the draft is right or wrong with regards to keep alive. We have not had any new information about requirements for keep alive than what we have 2 or more years ago. But, every single meeting we seem to change the keep alive mechanism. In many meetings we achieved strong consensus on how it should work, then a very few people on the list have argued for something different and we have changed it. We will never finish if we keep doing this.
Cullen <with my individual contributor hat on> On Mar 9, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Xavier Marjou wrote: > It would be great if the only thing to do could be to add such a > precision. This would encourage the incremental deployment of some > outbound draft features even if the registrar does not support > outbound. > > Xavier > > > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Christer Holmberg > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > >>Again, that is what I have proposed as an alternative. I have > said > > >>that the UA should be allowed, when it sees the "ob" > > >>parameter in the Path, to use keep-alive even if the registrar > does > > not > > >>support outbound. > > > > > >What's there to stop it from doing just that? > > > > Nothing, as far as I know. > > > > I am only asking for some clarification text. > > > > The draft currently says: > > > > "The UAC examines successful registration responses for the > presence > > of an 'outbound' option-tag in a Require header field value. > > Presence of this option-tag indicates that the registrar is > compliant > > with this specification, and that any edge proxies which needed to > > participate are also compliant." > > > > So, I think it would be good to add something like: > > > > "If the registrar did not support outbound, but there was a path > header > > with the edge proxy URI > > present in the 200 OK response to the REGISTER message, the UAC may > > check > > whether the URI-parametyer "ob" is included in the URI. If so, > then the > > UAC knows that > > outbound keepalives can be used even though the registrar does not > > support outbound." > > > > So, it's just a clarification... > > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ 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
