Dean Willis writes: > It probably is useful, just as having keepalive separate from outbound > is probably useful. If we were designing outbound from scratch, we'd > probably break those two functions out into separate drafts, and have > outbound use them.
my understanding is that there has never been a previous outbound related rfc, i.e., we ARE designing outbound from scratch. > Given that we can, if we find it sufficiently useful, add a generic > connect-reuse modifier apart from outbound, Is it worth derailing > outbound in order to fix it at this stage? it surely is. real life fact is that many vendors have already implemented keepalive as a standalone mechanism and (as my presence example showed) there would be need to have a generic mechanism for connection reuse too. -- juha _______________________________________________ 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
