IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] An alternate to the requirements section in proxy-feature-02 - Question 3

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Tue, 14 June 2011 05:44 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA63D22800F for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.541
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PlyPlegxKRZp for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC9522800D for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bfdae000005125-b4-4df6f5502e20
Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 4F.65.20773.055F6FD4; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:44:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.136]) by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se ([10.2.3.116]) with mapi; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:44:47 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, "SIPCORE (Session Initiation Protocol Core) WG" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:44:46 +0200
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] An alternate to the requirements section in proxy-feature-02 - Question 3
Thread-Index: AcwqFqYTQEAn1z7mQXegva76OlfNlAAPxOSA
Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585194E3A0EF9@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <E735B468-793B-4C07-B9E0-A9E0F93A9D51@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <E735B468-793B-4C07-B9E0-A9E0F93A9D51@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [sipcore] An alternate to the requirements section in proxy-feature-02 - Question 3
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 05:44:51 -0000

Hi Robert,

In my previous reply, I forgot to comment on your question 3) 

>Question 3: It appears that the capability indication is
>  only used when processing the initial request, and appears
>  in subsequent in-dialog signalling in the current proposed
>  mechanism because that's what 3261 requires. If the mechanism
>  evolved such that the indication appeared only in the dialog
>  establishing transaction, and not in any subsequent in-dialog
>  messages, what would break?

I am not sure whether any of the existing use-cases would break, but I'd need to look into it.

But, again, the intention is that what applies to UAs should also apply to proxies.

Regards,

Christer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email