On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 13:02 -0500, Paul Mossman wrote: > CounterPath has suggested that we workaround the problem with a > sipXecs change to return an artificially high Min-Expires: 1800 in the > 423 Subscription Too Brief response. This will cause the CounterPath > to "reset" its requested Expires: value each time the ratcheting down > reaches the minimum supported value. Not ideal, but still an > improvement. > > Does anyone have a strong objection to doing this in the short term?
"Amazon power failure" The randomization of subscription times was put in after much effort to prevent chaos when a large site has a power cycle. I can't see why we should put weird and possibly standards-violating code to get around a problem in someone else's software. Why is it easier for sipX to fix the problem than Counterpath? Dale _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
