[Sip] PING draft update

"Frank W. Miller" <fwmiller@cornfed.com> Thu, 16 March 2006 01:35 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJhP5-0003mA-Su; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:35:51 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJhP4-0003li-Fr for sip@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:35:50 -0500
Received: from celine.siteprotect.com ([64.41.122.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJhP1-0007WK-7c for sip@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:35:50 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (pool-70-17-203-185.balt.east.verizon.net [70.17.203.185]) by celine.siteprotect.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k2G1Zk308058 for <sip@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:35:46 -0600
From: "Frank W. Miller" <fwmiller@cornfed.com>
To: sip@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A0170DE0C415@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
References: <28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A0170DE0C415@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Cornfed Systems, LLC
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:35:43 -0500
Message-Id: <1142472943.2727.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-5)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
Subject: [Sip] PING draft update
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: fwmiller@cornfed.com
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org

I've updated the PING draft:

draft-fwmiller-ping-02

http://www.cornfed.com/ping.txt
http://www.cornfed.com/ping.html

I made two changes.  First, I took out the verbage about no
retransmissions.  A PING request initiates a standard NIT as before.  I
went back and looked at the NIT client side again and found that the max
interval during requests retransmissions is actually 4 seconds.  This
means that the concern that a NAT binding might drop is unfounded if the
stated assumption of 15 seconds is valid.

Second, I added a paragraph on the potential expedited processing at the
UAS that has been suggested.

I'm also uploading the .txt version to the IETF side tonight.

Thanks,
FM


_______________________________________________
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