Re: [Sip] More on manyfolks
William Marshall <wtm@research.att.com> Mon, 10 September 2001 22:15 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 SAA03609 for <sip-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 18:15:45 -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 RAA20485; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:53:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA20066 for <sip@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:32:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-30-103.research.att.com [135.207.30.103]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02381 for <sip@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:30:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from alliance.research.att.com (alliance.research.att.com [135.207.26.26]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 001741E037 for <sip@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:32:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fish.research.att.com (fish.research.att.com [135.207.27.137]) by alliance.research.att.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA08683 for <sip@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:32:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: William Marshall <wtm@research.att.com>
Received: (from wtm@localhost) by fish.research.att.com (SGI-8.9.3/8.8.5) id RAA93096 for sip@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:33:59 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:33:59 -0400
Message-Id: <200109102133.RAA93096@fish.research.att.com>
Subject: Re: [Sip] More on manyfolks
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
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
Chapter 11 contains all the SIP usage rules, and contains all the MUST/SHOULD/MAY/whatevers. There is nothing in there about using reliable provisional response for the 180 Ringing. You are right there is no reason why it needs to. Chapter 12 is a set of examples; the example does use 100rel for the 180. So I think the current wording in section 12, that "the 180-Ringing provisional response ... is also sent using the reliability mechanism..." matches the figure and intentionally contains no spec language. On the forking section (13), I agree that there are other alternatives to blindly doing multiple reservations when multiple destinations respond with 18x responses. I'll expand that section to include the possibility of sequentially handling the reservations, and also the possibility of sending a BYE (with tags) to avoid the multiple reservations. Bill Marshall wtm@research.att.com -----original message----- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 07:58:46 +0300 From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@lmf.ericsson.se> To: sip@ietf.org Subject: [Sip] More on manyfolks Hi, A couple of small comments/questions on the manyfolks draft: Chapter 12.1. The text says that the 180 Rining provisional response is also sent using the reliability mechanism, ie PRACK. First, I would like to have it as a MUST/SHOULD/MAY/whatever - just to clarify. Second, it if is a MUST I would like to know why. I DO understand why the 183 needs PRACK in this scenario, but why the 180? Chapter 13. First, since it has been decided that forking WILL be a part of the spec, I think that the idea of having a chapter like this in the draft is very good (more on that in another thread). Anyway, since we now do support the sending of BYE for a specific call leg, using the tag, before the call is established, I think it could be added to this chapter. Ie would not be mandatory to do multiple resource reservation. Regards, Christer Holmberg Ericsson Finland _______________________________________________ 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] More on manyfolks Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Sip] More on manyfolks William Marshall