Dean Willis writes: > Seems like what you are asking for is for a proxy to require parallel > forking to multiple contacts regsitered by a single UA.
huh, i'm not asking anything beyond what is in rfc3261 and what is currently working fine in practise. or can you point to text in rfc3261 that prohibits a single UA registering several contacts for a single AoR and that prohibits a proxy parallel forking to those contacts when the contacts share the same q value? > That is not > only out of scope for outbound, it is also undesirable behaivior (as > in totally broken) for a great number of use cases. i didn't know that normal rfc3261 compliant behavior is outside of scope of outbound. was it listed in outbound requirements that outbound should obsolete forking that has been there from the very beginning and that many applications rely on? could you quote the requirements text on that? also, what wrong or undesirable there is in the forking example that i have described in earlier messages? > Consequently, this > means it would require a great deal of documentation around the use > cases for which it makes sense. I do not think this can be done > reasonably in the outbound draft. outbound should not change current rfc3261 compliant forking behavior. it has to support it and if more text is needed, then it is outbound editors' problem. forking is much more important than outbound especially when many UAs have already implemented things like keepalives without outbound. -- 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
