Hi Cullen, Believe me, I want to finish this draft as fast as you (and many others).
So, all I am asking for is for a few lines of clarification text. It doesn't change anything, or reintroduce any parameters. I think even Aki said that what I now propose is already allowed, so it would just be a clarification. I also think it's unfair of blaming me for coming with new requirements. Already 2 years ago you, me and Rohan agreed to allow to outbound proxy to indicate support of keep-alive, and it was in the draft until version -12. But, again, I don't mind having it in a separate draft, in order to progress the outbound draft. Again, as far as the outbound draft is concerned, all I ask for is a few words of to clarify something which people say IS already allowed. Regards, Christer > -----Original Message----- > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 9. maaliskuuta 2008 22:02 > To: Dean Willis > Cc: Christer Holmberg; Aki Niemi; Rohan Mahy; SIP; Francois Audet > Subject: Re: [Sip] Outbound-12: STUN keep-alives without outbound > > > 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
