RE: [Sip] S-S-L mode in RPH for ets and wps (#6)

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

comments in-line

I changed the subject line BTW

At 02:38 PM 11/8/2004 -0500, Janet P Gunn wrote:
>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).

no, this Require header will have "Resource-Priority" as a field value 
stating that the RPH is to be expected in the Response.


>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.

thanks, it really is needed


>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"?

no technical reason that I can think of right now


>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.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented


_______________________________________________
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