Re: [BLISS] call-completion open issue 1011: Forking of the CC SUBSCRIBE to multiple destinations
<R.Jesske@telekom.de> Tue, 20 July 2010 07:45 UTC
Return-Path: <R.Jesske@telekom.de>
X-Original-To: bliss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bliss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991503A6C17 for <bliss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WhT-4nus3fj7 for <bliss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [194.25.30.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5903A69ED for <bliss@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s4de8psaans.blf.telekom.de (HELO s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de) ([10.151.180.168]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP; 20 Jul 2010 09:45:15 +0200
Received: from S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.13]) by s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:45:14 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:45:10 +0200
Message-ID: <9886E5FCA6D76549A3011068483A4BD4065E6622@S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de>
In-Reply-To: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B21FE98EE81@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [BLISS] call-completion open issue 1011: Forking of the CC SUBSCRIBE to multiple destinations
Thread-Index: AQHLHkhH8sY1yvilf02hkAslDexG85K5giMQ
References: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B21FE98EE81@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
From: R.Jesske@telekom.de
To: dworley@avaya.com, bliss@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jul 2010 07:45:14.0790 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D8EEC60:01CB27DF]
Subject: Re: [BLISS] call-completion open issue 1011: Forking of the CC SUBSCRIBE to multiple destinations
X-BeenThere: bliss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Basic Level of Interoperability for SIP Services \(BLISS\) BoF" <bliss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss>, <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bliss>
List-Post: <mailto:bliss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss>, <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:45:10 -0000
Hi all, This is noted for the revision. The proposed text clarifies the issue. Best Regards Roland and Martin -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: bliss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bliss-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von WORLEY, Dale R (Dale) Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Juli 2010 04:52 An: bliss@ietf.org Betreff: [BLISS] call-completion open issue 1011: Forking of the CC SUBSCRIBE to multiple destinations The conversation so far: > > * 1011 Forking of the CC SUBSCRIBE to multiple destinations > > > > Andrew Hutton notes that the SIP stack in some UAs may not be > > able to send several SUBSCRIBEs to several destinations using > > the same Call-Id. > > > > The answer is that it is not *necessary* for these SUBSCRIBEs > > to be forks of the same transaction. If they have separate > > Call-Ids, there are certain inefficiencies but no loss of > > functionality: A monitor might receive forks of more than > > one of these SUBSCRIBEs and not realize that they are merged > > requests, and will establish multiple queue elements. But > > only one of these queue elements will be selected for callback. > > > > We need to add some text to section 6.2 about this. (I think in older > > versions there was a requirement that the same Call-Id should be > > used.) This shouldn't be difficult to address as it is actually an > > efficiency measure. > > Maybe we could suggest the usage of the same Call ID with a SHOULD? I think we are all agreed that this should be a SHOULD. We could add the following paragraph after the first paragraph of 6.2: To minimize redundant subscriptions, these SUBSCRIBEs SHOULD have the same Call-Id, that is, be presented as forks of the same transaction, if the caller's agent is capable of doing so. Dale _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list BLISS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
- [BLISS] call-completion open issue 1011: Forking … WORLEY, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: [BLISS] call-completion open issue 1011: Fork… R.Jesske