RE: [Sip] Strict, Semi-Strict and Loose mode in RPH - not a good fit for ets and wps

[Janet P Gunn <[e-mail]>]

James said:
___


> > 6 There is no a priori requirement to use, or not use, the "Require"
> > header field.
>
>isn't this addressed in section 4.3.2 below?  or am I missing something?
>
>    If the request includes a 'Require' header field with the
>    'Resource-Priority' option tag, a UAS MUST follow the strict or
>    semi-strict mode rules, otherwise UAS and proxies MUST operate in
>    loose mode.
>
>
>[JG]I guess I wasn't clear.   I simply meant that there wasn't a concern
>about the "require" header itself, independent of the
>strict/semi-strict/loose mode.  Once that is "right", the approach to the
>"require" header will follow

hmmmm

The "Require" header is to mandate that SIP Responses use the header as is
(copied from request to response without change). If ever there is a case
needed in which preferential treatment is within the processing of SIP
elements (such as Proxies), knowing there will always be more than one SIP
message necessary to complete a transaction - meaning both Request and
Response will need to be RP marked for preferential treatment for the
session/transaction to be given priority over other transactions.

To put this simply, if the INVITE is consistently moved to the head of the
line in all SIP elements between UAs 1 & 2, and the 200 OK is
slowed/delayed or lost in the congestion of one or more Proxies, the call
will not be established. In this case, the INVITE, 200 OK and ACK will need
the RP indication to gain the preferential treatment of that domain; and
any other messages within that transaction will require it too (such as
183, PRACK and UPDATE messages if RFC 3312 Preconditions were to be
required to set up, say RSVP between endpoints).
___

OK, I was definitely missing the point here.  I was looking at it simply as
the "require" header being the trigger for "strict, or semi-strict" mode
(as opposed to loose mode).

Now that you have explained that it ALSO triggers "setting RPH in the
response, and other associated messages", I would have to say that I DO
want the require header.

In that case , I am unhappy with
      "'Strict' and 'semi-strict' are identified by the
   presence or absence of a 'Require' header field with the 'Resource-
   Priority' option tag.  'Loose' mode does not contain a Require
   header."

Is there some reason we can't have "Loose" and"Require"?

Janet


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
for such purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip