RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-refer-02 - SHOULD strength when sending NOTIFY

["Sriram Parameswar" <[e-mail]>]

Yes - pls see Events Draft.
Sriram
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: Ranjit Avasarala [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 3:08 PM
To: Parameswar, Sriram [NGB:B692:EXCH]; 'Robert Sparks'; 'JF Rey'; 'sip'
Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-refer-02 - SHOULD strength when sending
NOTIFY



is it a standard SIP message? like 200 
 

Regards
Ranjit 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sriram Parameswar [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 2:51 PM
To: 'ranjitka'; 'Robert Sparks'; 'JF Rey'; sip
Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-refer-02 - SHOULD strength when sending
NOTIFY



202 signifies that the Transferee has "Accepted" your REFER. It is not an
indication of success or failure - that will come in the NOTIFY.

HTH. 

Sriram 

__________________________________________ 
Sriram Parameswar              Phone: [phone] 
Interactive Multimedia Server (IMS) Fax: [phone] 
Nortel Networks, Richardson USA  Email: [e-mail] 


-----Original Message----- 
From: Ranjit Avasarala [ mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> ] 
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 12:54 PM 
To: 'Robert Sparks'; 'JF Rey'; sip 
Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-refer-02 - SHOULD strength when 
sending NOTIFY 


what does 202 signify? 


Regards 
Ranjit 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Robert Sparks [ mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> ] 
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:07 AM 
To: 'JF Rey'; [e-mail] 
Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-refer-02 - SHOULD strength when 
sending NOTIFY 


inline 

> -----Original Message----- 
> From: JF Rey [ mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ] 
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I'm a bit confused about the way NOTIFY are used by the 
> "referee" party. 
> 
> referer              referee 
>  |====== SIP session ===| 
>  |--------REFER-------> | 
>  |<--------202--------- |----INVITE --> 
>  |                      |<---180------ 
>         ... quite a long time ... 
>  |<------NOTIFY ------  |<---200------ 
>  |----------200-------->| 
>  |---------- BYE ------>| 
> 
> draft-ietf-sip-refer-02 states : 
> "3.5.3.1 Using NOTIFY 
> Once it is known whether the reference succeeded or failed, 
> the UA receiving the REFER SHOULD notify the agent sending 
> the refer using the NOTIFY mechanism [...]" 
> 
> All the example flows I've seen around use the NOTIFY 
> mechanism whenever a REFER is accepted. 
> 
> If I understand the "SHOULD" strength correctly, the referer 
> can't know whether the referee will send a NOTIFY. So it 
> can't know when to stop waiting for a NOTIFY and when to send 
> a BYE. I think that's quite awkward. 

The referer is going to have to be prepared to never receive 
a NOTIFY whether that requirement is a MUST or a SHOULD. IIRC, the 
proponents of SHOULD earlier argued that they had systems where 
they knew the referer did not care about the result and didn't want 
the referee/network to be burdened with an effectively useless 
NOTIFY. However - later in the message you caused me to realize 
we need to realign with sip-events. See below. 

> 
> Besides, I understand that nothing prevents a referee to send 
> NOTIFY on provisional responses (and not only on final 
> responses). But the way the sentence is written : "whether 
> the reference succeeded or failed" does not really take 
> provisional responses into account. No example in 
> draft-ietf-sip-cc-transfer-05.txt shows NOTIFY triggered by 
> 1xx. If the referee INVITEs a human, the referer may have a 
> very long time to wait before receiving a NOTIFY triggered by 
> the 200 response to the INVITE. 

This clarification has already been requested and will be added 
to the drafts. I don't understand how the last sentence relates 
to the rest of the paragraph though. It is correct in the presence 
or absence of NOTIFYs carrying progress information. 

> 
> Do people implement REFER without the NOTIFY mechanism ? 

I don't know. If someone does it would help if they speak up. 

> 
> If 
> we can't change the SHOULD strength, could we have a way for 
> the referee to indicate that it will send NOTIFY ? 

The current sip-events draft requires an immediate notify, 
so I think this may be moot. I think we need to align to that 
change in sip-events - and the SHOULD you object to effectively 
goes away. However, when implementing, you still need to protect 
yourself against a NOTIFY never arriving for robustness. 

>Could the 
> wording in 3.5.3.1 include NOTIFY on provisional responses ? 
Yes 


RjS 

_______________________________________________ 
Sip mailing list  http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
<http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>  
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol 
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip 
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip 

_______________________________________________ 
Sip mailing list  http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
<http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>  
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol 
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip 
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip