Just one further thought on the first topic below, otherwise I am ok with the rest.
-----Original Message----- From: Francois Audet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 3:48 PM To: Kevin Johns; [email protected] Cc: Rohan Mahy; Cullen Jennings Subject: RE: [Sip] Outbound-12 comments See below. I've trimmed the things we are either fixing already or where we have closed. > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Johns [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 14:01 > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); [email protected] > Cc: Rohan Mahy; Cullen Jennings > Subject: RE: [Sip] Outbound-12 comments > > > Section 4.2.1, Initial Registration, 2nd para - Is the opening > > sentence well understood by all? "For each outbound proxy > URI in the > > set, the UA SHOULD send a unique REGISTER in the normal way > using this > > > URI as the default outbound proxy." > > I think it's clear. What do you propose we change? > <kcj> I was not necessarily proposing a change. I just wanted to make > sure folks were comfortable with the language 'a unique REGISTER in > the normal way'. When I read this it was unclear to me what unique was > referring to? Is the REGISTER unique in that each must have a > different reg-id or that a unique call-id is used or both? Further if > the normal way is RFC 3261 then why not state a REGISTER per RFC 3261 > with the following enhancements...? What about this: For each outbound proxy URI in the set, the UAC SHOULD send a REGISTER request using this URI as the outbound proxy. <kcj> This is good. Can we further clarify that the UAC MUST attempt to register at least one or is that just plain obvious? > > Section 4.2.1, Initial Registration - this section makes no > reference > > to the keep-timer. It would seem that this should be > discussed in the > > same context as detecting outbound support in the registration > > response? It is covered in section 4.4 but seems out of place as a > > first reference. > > You mean the Flow-Timer? I'm not sure why we would want to discuss the > Flow-Timer in the section about Registration. Can you be more specific > on what you are looking for? > <kcj> Yes I meant flow-timer, sorry for the confusion. Given there is > text in 4.2.1 to examine the registration response for presence of the > outbound option-tag it seemed reasonable to identify all the > parameters the UA should look for in the response. No big deal if > folks are comfortable with the current text. Yes, but there is already a forward reference to 4.4. It says: If outbound registration succeeded, as indicated by the presence of the outbound option-tag in the Require header field of a successful registration response, the UA begins sending keepalives as described in Section 4.4." > > Section 4.2.2, Subsequent REGISTER requests, The first sentence - > > "Re-registrations and single Contact de-registrations use the same > > instance-id and reg-id values as the corresponding initial > > registration." Suggest making this normative > > You mean saying: > "Re-registrations and single Contact > de-registrations MUST use the same instance-id and reg-id values as > the corresponding initial registration." > <kcj> Yes this is my suggestion > > Rohan? I'm OK with this recommendation. _______________________________________________ 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
