Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-hop-limit-diagnostics-03

Scott Lawrence <slawrence@pingtel.com> Mon, 03 July 2006 19:40 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxUHh-0004C8-JO; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:40:41 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxUHg-0004C3-8T for sip@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:40:40 -0400
Received: from [65.220.123.2] (helo=mail.pingtel.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxUHZ-0001Kh-0V for sip@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:40:40 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain (pi.pingtel.com [10.1.1.12]) by mail.pingtel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B3B96C022; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 14:39:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-hop-limit-diagnostics-03
From: Scott Lawrence <slawrence@pingtel.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D831F539-2E71-4E3A-936C-CA379BA4236A@cisco.com>
References: <1150495197.10237.51.camel@sukothai.pingtel.com> <D831F539-2E71-4E3A-936C-CA379BA4236A@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Pingtel Corp. http://www.pingtel.com/
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:39:40 -0400
Message-Id: <1151955580.2892.102.camel@sukothai.pingtel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.2 (2.6.2-1.fc5.5)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
Cc: SIP WG List <sip@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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

On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 09:00 -0700, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Scott Lawrence wrote:
> 
> >
> > There are, I think, two issues remaining for discussion:
> 
> I disagree - I don't think the draft of the discussion has addressed  
> the issue I brought up.

I'm going to guess here - do you mean the issue of how large the
response should be?

There is text in the draft on _how_ to reduce the size of the response.

3261 does not provide guidance clear guidance on response size limits.
It _does_ say that all implementations MUST be able to handle messages
up to the maximum UDP packet size, which can probably handle even 70 hop
messages.  If you think that SIP needs better definition of _when_ to
limit response sizes and _what_ size they should be limited to, then I
think that's an interesting discussion, but it's a bigger question than
this error response and a problem that already exists whether this draft
is accepted or not.

-- 
Scott Lawrence  tel:+1-781-938-5306;ext=162 or sip:slawrence@pingtel.com
  sipXpbx project coordinator - SIPfoundry    http://www.sipfoundry.org/sipX
  Chief Architect             - Pingtel Corp. http://www.pingtel.com/



_______________________________________________
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