IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] Comments on draft-roach-sipcore-rfc3265bis-00

"Dale Worley" <dworley@nortel.com> Wed, 10 June 2009 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <dworley@nortel.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 AC6E43A6AB3 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.71
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 sluBhle8qNkt for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com (zcars04e.nortel.com [47.129.242.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFBF43A65A6 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com (casmtp.ca.nortel.com [47.140.202.46]) by zcars04e.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id n5AMAkP21212; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:10:47 GMT
Received: from [47.16.90.165] ([47.16.90.165]) by zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:12:04 -0400
From: Dale Worley <dworley@nortel.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A301A06.3000608@cisco.com>
References: <1240958114.18691.54.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <4A1C4C45.90204@nostrum.com> <1244143850.3743.62.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <4A282D39.2090401@cisco.com> <1244232151.3786.70.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <1244661124.3769.93.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <4A3014AD.6090906@cisco.com> <106280B2-9FAC-40F2-9CDE-690BB9246156@estacado.net> <4A301A06.3000608@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Nortel Networks
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:12:04 -0400
Message-Id: <1244671924.3769.131.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-5.fc8)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jun 2009 22:12:04.0632 (UTC) FILETIME=[7C8A4180:01C9EA18]
Cc: SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>, Byron Campen <bcampen@estacado.net>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Comments on draft-roach-sipcore-rfc3265bis-00
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: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:12:16 -0000

On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 16:39 -0400, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> Byron Campen wrote:
> >     3265 specifies that a reason param of "deactivated" on a NOTIFY 
> > terminated should cause the UAC to immediately re-establish the 
> > subscription.  (See Sec 3.2.4, or 4.1.3 in bis-00) Whether this is 
> > actually implemented... *shrug*
> 
> OK. That is what I was looking for.
> In that case I think Dale's approach can fly.
> If people haven't implemented it, maybe they will when it starts to be 
> useful to do so.

Well, as I said before, I think that in 99% of the current
implementation situations, the subscriber will re-subscribe as a matter
of policy.  But it's good for the termination message to have an
explicit semantic for that behavior as well.

Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email