Re: [Sip] Outbound-10 comments

Yes, it does.  I checked the related changes and they look fine.  Thanks.,
-- Peter

Rohan Mahy <rohan@ekabal.com>
01.12.07 14:22

        To:     peter_blatherwick@mitel.com
        cc:     Rohan Mahy <rohan@ekabal.com>, Jerry Yin 
<jerry.yin@yahoo.com>, fluffy@cisco.com, sip@ietf.org
        Subject:        Re: [Sip] Outbound-10 comments

Jerry, Peter,

Per consenus in Chicago we have ;keep in outbound-11 instead of ;keep- 
stun and ;keep-crlf.  I believe this fix addresses your comments.

thanks,
-rohan

On Sep 20, 2007, at 8:06 AM, peter_blatherwick@mitel.com wrote:
> I agree with Jerry here, and believe this has come up before (?). 
> It is pointless for the originating UA to try to impose, or infer, 
> the keepalive mechanism before it can know what is applicable.
>
> An additional comment along these lines.
> > a. UA sends REGISTER to the proxy with a "outbound" tag in the 
> Supported header.
> ...
> > c. If the "outbound" tag is present in the 200 OK, and if the 
> transport is UDP, using the STUN keep alive, other connection based 
> transport using crlf keep alive.
>
> Step a) would really imply the originating UA MUST support both 
> keepalive mechanisms, and c) implies it MUST begin using the 
> appropriate one after 200 OK.  The usage is implied, not explicit, 
> which I believe is sufficient in this case.  Alternatively, the 
> usage could be made more explicit by listing the supported k-a 
> mechanisms in Supported exchange, or some such.  This should be 
> spelled out either way.
>
> -- Peter Blatherwick 
>
>
>
>
> Jerry Yin <jerry.yin@yahoo.com>
> 19.09.07 16:40
>
>
>         To:        sip@ietf.org, fluffy@cisco.com, rohan@ekabal.com
>         cc:
>         Subject:        [Sip] Outbound-10 comments
>
>
>
> Hi Cullen and Rohan,
>
> In the draft, it requires the UA configure the next hop route 
> header with "keep-stun", "keep-crlf", or "timed-keepalive" tags. 
> This would cause some problems.
>
> 1. As an example, the route-set contains this route header as 
> indicated in section 9 example:
> Route: <sip:pri.example.com;lr;keep-stun>
> If the DNS NAPTR resolution for pri.example.com is TCP, SCTP or 
> TLS, the keep-stun will be useless. Vice versa, if the 
> pri.example.com is resolved as UDP, and if "keep-crlf" was manually 
> configured, it is not working either.
>
> 2. Before sending the REGISTER request, the admin/or user does not 
> know what keep-alive mechanism the proxy (or edge proxy) supports. 
> Blindly configure the keep-stun, or keep-crlf would cause the 
> problem that the draft indicated itself in section 8: "the node 
> could be blacklisted for UDP traffic".
> The better approach is to let the UA and the proxy to negotiate, 
> not manually configure from UA side.
> a. UA sends REGISTER to the proxy with a "outbound" tag in the 
> Supported header.
> b. Proxy insert the "outbound" tag in the 200 OK, if the UA 
> indicated that it supports the outbound.
> c. If the "outbound" tag is present in the 200 OK, and if the 
> transport is UDP, using the STUN keep alive, other connection based 
> transport using crlf keep alive.
> There would be no way to mass up by configurations with this 
> approach. Let me know if I missed something.
>
> Regards,
> Jerry Yin
>
>
> Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not 
> web links. _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://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
>