Thanks Ranjit,
IMO it will be too restrictive on entities because we do not
want to block the call if the entities do not support this package.
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Ashish Saxena
877-5570
-----Original Message-----
From: Avasarala Ranjit-A20990 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 12:27 PM
To: Ashish Saxena (WT01 - Telecom Equipment);
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Sip] Draft submission: draft-ietf-sip-199-00
Hi
Can we use Require:199 to indicate to proxy to send 199?
Regards
Ranjit
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 10:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sip] Draft submission: draft-ietf-sip-199-00
Probably everybody is busy. Any thoughts on this one.
Best Regards,
Ashish Saxena
877-5570
-----Original Message-----
From: Ashish Saxena (WT01 - Telecom Equipment)
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 10:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Sip] Draft submission: draft-ietf-sip-199-00
Hi Christer,
From Section 4 (Client Behaviour) part of this draft, I
understood that primary objective of this draft is to give indication to
UAC to release resources, if any. I am little worried about extra
messaging that will be seen because of 199 implementation. Can there be
a way to tell proxies and UAS downstream that UAC has some resources
reserved for this call and would be interested in receiving 199, if
possible?
IMO, UAC (mostly) is in better understanding of the resources that it
has reserved for a particular call. So UAC can selectively add something
in INVITE to tell downstream proxies/ UAS' about its interest.
IMO, we can have a package for 199 and UAC can use "Supported" header to
indicate entities downstream that it would be interested in getting 199
for this *particular* call. Implicitly it would mean that UAC has
reserved some resources. I understand that we would changing the meaning
of "Supported" header on per call basis :-(. Something else may be?
Comments please.
Best Regards,
Ashish Saxena
_______________________________________________
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
