Re: [sipcore] AD review: draft-ietf-sipcore-event-rate-control-03

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

I don't think it's as clear-cut as that.

4662 used the extension points 3265 expected to be used. Someone that had written a network monitor, for example, just using
3265 for reference could have produced code that made sense out of a stream of messages emitted by implementations of 4662.

That same code would probably not do the right thing with a stream of messages from this spec - at the very least, it wouldn't know
to be looking for Event headers in 200 responses - that's what makes this new, and potentially a change to the base specification.

What does 3265bis say about Event headers in responses to NOTIFYs at the moment?

RjS

On Jul 12, 2010, at 9:27 PM, Adam Roach wrote:

> [as participant and RFC3265 expert]
> 
> On 7/12/10 19:13, Jul 12, [e-mail] wrote:
>> Major question:
>> 
>> Why isn't this an Update to 3265?
>> 
>> [KK] It's an extension to 3265. Implementations of 3265 not interested in rate control don't need to implement it. If people think it's an essential part of event-notifications, we could make it as an update of 3265. Any recommendations?
> 
> To be clear, these kinds of extensions haven't historically been considered "updates" to 3265 -- at least, in terms of the RFC "updates" terminology. Probably the closest parallel is RFC 4662 (another cross-package extension), which was not considered to be an update to 3265.
> 
> So I think it's appropriate to consider this an extension (which we have not traditionally considered an "update"), rather than a formal update.
> 
> /a