On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 15:26 -0500, Dale Worley wrote: > On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 15:13 -0500, Beeton, Carolyn AVAYA (CAR:9D60) > wrote: > > The only way out that I see is to NOT terminate the subscription on > > receipt of 500, even without a Retry-After header. Would this be such a > > horrible thing to do? > > The trouble with doing that is that it lets Polycom get away with > behaving in a non-standard way, and trains Polycom that they need not > conform to the specifications because everybody else will change their > systems to compensate for Polycom's errors.
That's a nice theoretical issue, but has no real bearing here and now. > In practice, there probably isn't much else we can do in the short run. > Have we filed a bug report with Polycom in regard to this behavior in > SA? (I'm pretty sure that the subscription-support code for SA > subscriptions is different from the subscription-support code for dialog > events.) > > What does Scott have to say about this? He's usually got a sharp eye > for what can be done practically. Also, Paul Mossman may be able to > give some insight into how quickly we can get Polycom to fix this. Can't we detect when we've lost the subscription (for this or any other reason) and re-establish it? _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
