Hi, >>QUESTION 1 TO SIP WG: Are the use cases sufficiently important to >>proceed with this draft? The document states: >>(...) >> The Outbound mechanism is enabled during the UA registration phase. >> However, there are use-cases where the UA does not register itself, >> but still needs to be able to make calls and maintain NAT bindings >> open during the duration of that call. >> >> A typical example is emergency calls. > >I don't get this one. You don't need to send keep-alive packets to make an >outbound call (be it urgent or not).
I am not sure that is what I am saying. I am saying that you in these use-cases can't use outbound, with keep-alives, even if you support it. >> There are also cases where entities do not support >> the Outbound mechanism, but still want to be able to indicate support >> and use the keep-alive techniques defined in [I-D.ietf-sip-outbound]. > >I don't get this either. If you don't support Outbound, why not use plain SIP >OPTIONS, which works _today_? An edge proxy does not know whether the UA is going to send OPTIONS, so it may use the short registration rerefresh mechanism. One of the purposes of the draft is for UAs to tell the edge proxy that it is willing to send keep-alives, so that the edge proxy doesn't need to use registration type of mechanisms. In addition, if OPTIONS is sent in-dialog it will be forwarded by the edge proxy towards the remote user, which is not needed. 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
