Hi, I don't think the spec is broken. I think the spec was written based on the assumption that a UA instance is not interested in receiving an INVITE multiple times in parallel (the UA will return 484 for all but one INVITE) - which I don't think is desired even in normal forking scenarios - but that it should be possible to, if one flow is down, choose another flow to reach the UA (read: serial forking).
And, IF you would use two instance-ids (as proposed by Dean), why does the forking proxy need to know whether they belong to the same UA or not? Why doesn't it simply do paralell forking? Regards, Christer > -----Original Message----- > From: Juha Heinanen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 1:08 PM > To: Dean Willis > Cc: Christer Holmberg; Paul Kyzivat; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip] Dual registration without Outbound > > Dean Willis writes: > > > Um, perhaps I missed something. What is that prevents a UA > from > registering two different interfaces with discrete > instance IDs and > having a forking proxy fork to both instances? > > i don't think nothing prevents that, but in my example, there > is only one sip ua and one instance of it. both contacts of > this instance belong to the same ua: > > Proxies can > determine which flows go to the same UA by comparing the > instance-id. > > if my phone would have two instance-ids, according to the > above, i would have too UAs, which is not the case today and > i don't want that to be the case when/if i one day upgrade > its software to support outbound rfc. > > it is amazing how hard it is to you to admit that outbound > i-d as currently written is badly broken. > > -- 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
