[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-outbound

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 13:15
> To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); Juha Heinanen; Dean Willis
> Cc: sip at ietf.org; Elwell, John; drage at alcatel-lucent.com
> Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-outbound
> 
> Hi Francois,
>  
> If you, as you propose, say:
>  
> "If the set has more than one URI, the UAC MUST send a 
> REGISTER request to at least two of the  default outbound 
> proxies from the set."
>  
> ..do you then really need the sentence saying:
>  
> "For each outbound proxy URI in the set, the UAC SHOULD send 
> a REGISTER request using this URI as the default outbound proxy."

Well, yes: it says you SHOULD do them all (but MUST at least 2). The
battery life stuff is justification for the SHOULD (i.e., why it's not
a MUST).

 
> Wouldn't it be enough to say that the UAC MUST register with 
> at least two?
>

If it's clearer, I could do this instead:

   For each outbound proxy URI in the set, the UAC SHOULD send a
   REGISTER request using this URI as the default outbound proxy:
   however, if the set has more than one URI, the UAC MUST send a 
   REGISTER request to at least two of the default outbound proxies 
   from the set. The reason for not mandating all the proxies in
   the set is that the UA could limit the number of flows formed to 
   conserve battery power, for example. The reason for mandating at
   least two is ensure high-availability if available. UAs that [...]

> I guess the question is whether UACs "with battery life 
> issues" want to be able to establish single flows or not. 
> Since the current draft does seem to allow it (at least it 
> doesn't explicitly forbid it) it could be rather unwise to 
> remove that possibility at this point, because it COULD be 
> seen as a rather big change. Maybe one solution would be to 
> strongly recommend against it, and add some words about the 
> lost functionality by doing so, but not explicitly forbid it.

That's why we are asking for feedback. So far I have heard 
nobody saying that 2 as a minimum is not acceptable.

But we have one stong opinion that 1 is not good.

The draft is ambibuous about 2 or 1. I for one read it 
as saying that 2 was the minimum (because it says 
"However, a UA MUST support sets with at least two outbound 
 proxy URIs and SHOULD support sets with up to four URIs."

So it's very unclear to to me that we would be "changing" from
1 to 2 "late in the game".

So, let's wait for more opinions.

> On the other hand, assuming the keep-draft moves forward: if 
> you are only going to establish a single flow I am not sure 
> you would need Outbound in the first place - keep would be enough :)
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip


sip>
List-Post: <mailto:sip at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>,
	<mailto:sip-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: sip-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces at ietf.org

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 13:15
> To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); Juha Heinanen; Dean Willis
> Cc: sip at ietf.org; Elwell, John; drage at alcatel-lucent.com
> Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-outbound
> 
> Hi Francois,
>  
> If you, as you propose, say:
>  
> "If the set has more than one URI, the UAC MUST send a 
> REGISTER request to at least two of the  default outbound 
> proxies from the set."
>  
> ..do you then really need the sentence saying:
>  
> "For each outbound proxy URI in the set, the UAC SHOULD send 
> a REGISTER request using this URI as the default outbound proxy."

Well, yes: it says you SHOULD do them all (but MUST at least 2). The
battery life stuff is justification for the SHOULD (i.e., why it's not
a MUST).

 
> Wouldn't it be enough to say that the UAC MUST register with 
> at least two?
>

If it's clearer, I could do this instead:

   For each outbound proxy URI in the set, the UAC SHOULD send a
   REGISTER request using this URI as the default outbound proxy:
   however, if the set has more than one URI, the UAC MUST send a 
   REGISTER request to at least two of the default outbound proxies 
   from the set. The reason for not mandating all the proxies in
   the set is that the UA could limit the number of flows formed to 
   conserve battery power, for example. The reason for mandating at
   least two is ensure high-availability if available. UAs that [...]

> I guess the question is whether UACs "with battery life 
> issues" want to be able to establish single flows or not. 
> Since the current draft does seem to allow it (at least it 
> doesn't explicitly forbid it) it could be rather unwise to 
> remove that possibility at this point, because it COULD be 
> seen as a rather big change. Maybe one solution would be to 
> strongly recommend against it, and add some words about the 
> lost functionality by doing so, but not explicitly forbid it.

That's why we are asking for feedback. So far I have heard 
nobody saying that 2 as a minimum is not acceptable.

But we have one stong opinion that 1 is not good.

The draft is ambibuous about 2 or 1. I for one read it 
as saying that 2 was the minimum (because it says 
"However, a UA MUST support sets with at least two outbound 
 proxy URIs and SHOULD support sets with up to four URIs."

So it's very unclear to to me that we would be "changing" from
1 to 2 "late in the game".

So, let's wait for more opinions.

> On the other hand, assuming the keep-draft moves forward: if 
> you are only going to establish a single flow I am not sure 
> you would need Outbound in the first place - keep would be enough :)
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip