Re: [sip-ops] SIP OPTIONS "ping"

Cullen Jennings <> Fri, 13 August 2010 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343193A681A for <>; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.504
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wow8Aul8PhaU for <>; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4F3C3A67ED for <>; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAJpcZEyrR7H+/2dsb2JhbACgNXGgDZtFhToEhC2FMA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,361,1278288000"; d="scan'208";a="239693917"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 13 Aug 2010 03:44:24 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7D3iOeS025576; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 03:44:24 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Cullen Jennings <>
In-Reply-To: <053401cb39dd$44070ee0$cc152ca0$>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:44:21 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <053401cb39dd$44070ee0$cc152ca0$>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc:, Hadriel Kaplan <>
Subject: Re: [sip-ops] SIP OPTIONS "ping"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Operations <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 03:43:49 -0000

I think you discuss how to move forward with this draft on dispatch mailing list given that's the point of that list is help with problems like this. 

On Aug 11, 2010, at 22:14 , Paul E. Jones wrote:

> Folks,
> Gonzalo and I produced an Internet Draft aiming at trying to bring some consistency to the way in which SIP user agents implement an OPTIONS “ping” procedure.  It seems that a very large number of vendors do this, but unfortunately, there seems to be little consistency.
> Initially, we positioned the document as a standards track RFC, since this essentially builds on RFC 3261.  However, there was some pushback from folks in the IETF for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that there is no working group chartered to do the work.  We don’t feel this one draft warrants the creation of a working group.
> So, we’ve got three options we can consider:
> 1)      Forge ahead outside of a working group
> 2)      Change the status of the draft to Informational
> 3)      Forget about the draft and let every SIP device do it the way they want, throwing hope of consistency out the window
> (Yeah, you can tell I prefer not to go for the third option.)
> In any case, I’d like to get feedback from the on the SIP operators and SIP implementers lists.  Do you think it’s worth trying to address this issue?  If so, which option do you think we should pursue?
> Note that we’re certainly open to feedback on the draft.  I’d prefer it to have a few more “MUST” statements in the text, rather than “SHOULD”.  But, we need to find that right balance:
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> sip-ops mailing list

Cullen Jennings
For corporate legal information go to: