[Sip] Open Issue #138: to fork, or not to fork
Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com> Wed, 22 August 2001 23:28 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26212 for <sip-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:28:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA05372; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:14:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA05341 for <sip@ns.ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:14:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail1.dynamicsoft.com ([63.113.40.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26030 for <sip@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:13:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DYN-EXCH-001.dynamicsoft.com (dyn-exch-001 [63.113.44.7]) by mail1.dynamicsoft.com (8.12.0.Beta7/8.12.0.Beta7) with ESMTP id f7MNDarN020586 for <sip@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:13:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by DYN-EXCH-001.dynamicsoft.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RBX3AWNR>; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:14:24 -0400
Message-ID: <B65B4F8437968F488A01A940B21982BF020D6633@DYN-EXCH-001.dynamicsoft.com>
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com>
To: "'sip@ietf.org'" <sip@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:14:18 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: [Sip] Open Issue #138: to fork, or not to fork
Sender: sip-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
Issue: Do we deprecate forking for INVITE? Do we deprecate forking for non-INVITE? Points of discussion: There was quick discussion on the first issue, followed by a hum of consensus. THere was strong consensus to keep forking of INVITE, with the notable exception of the esteemed chair, Mr. Willis. There was agreement to close on this so that we can stifle continued dsicussion of the subject on the list. The second one is more complex. Forking of non-INVITE is complex since the non-INVITE only generates a single response. Forking makes sense when the things you fork to are homogeneous and don't create state. Thus, speaking to any one is fine. If state is created by the non-INVITE, and this state needs to be managed, the non-INVITE has to have some companion method that allows the "called party" to send a request back towards the "caller" to indicate that a "leg" was created there. We have encountered a need for this for SUBSCRIBE. It appears to be useful to fork SUBSCRIBE, and so long as we use Adam's proposed approach of constructing route sets and leg state through the NOTIFY, it works fine. Proposal: Continue to allow forking of non-INVITE. There was consensus on this proposal. -Jonathan R. --- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Ave. Chief Scientist First Floor dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000 http://www.dynamicsoft.com _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
- [Sip] Open Issue #138: to fork, or not to fork Jonathan Rosenberg
- [Sip] RE: Open Issue #138: to fork, or not to fork Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [Sip] RE: Open Issue #138: to fork, or not to… Christer Holmberg
- RE: [Sip] RE: Open Issue #138: to fork, or not to… Tan Ya-Ching ICM N MC MI E73
- Re: [Sip] RE: Open Issue #138: to fork, or not to… Christer Holmberg
- RE: [Sip] RE: Open Issue #138: to fork, or not to… Jonathan Rosenberg
- RE: [Sip] RE: Open Issue #138: to fork, or not to… Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [Sip] RE: Open Issue #138: to fork, or not to… Christer Holmberg