Re: [sipcore] Editorial comments on rfc4244bis-02

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Sun, 07 November 2010 06:35 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D4743A69CF for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 23:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i+vcDRRRsBTh for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 23:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DBB03A69C1 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 23:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsMFAOvl1UxAaMHG/2dsb2JhbACUCo1/cZ8pmkSFSASEWIV9gwo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,309,1286150400"; d="scan'208";a="282117943"
Received: from syd-core-1.cisco.com ([64.104.193.198]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2010 06:35:21 +0000
Received: from [10.75.235.198] (hkidc-vpn-client-235-198.cisco.com [10.75.235.198]) by syd-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA76ZIqB015204 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 06:35:20 GMT
Message-ID: <4CD648A4.60301@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 01:35:16 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.11) Gecko/20101013 Thunderbird/3.1.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sipcore@ietf.org
References: <0CDF97F6-E125-45F8-B266-65E79BAE6F1A@acmepacket.com>
In-Reply-To: <0CDF97F6-E125-45F8-B266-65E79BAE6F1A@acmepacket.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Editorial comments on rfc4244bis-02
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 06:35:10 -0000

On 11/6/2010 11:48 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:

> 5) Section 7.1 says: "...plus NOTIFY requests that initiate a dialog."  Ummm... what type of NOTIFY requests would those be?? (other than proprietary)  Actually, that raises a question - can this appear in proprietary methods?

In case of forking, NOTIFY requests can initiate a dialog.
And with 3256bis dialogs are *always* initiated by NOTIFY.

	Thanks,
	Paul