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

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.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Best regards,
> Byron Campen
> 
>> Do we have a way of terminating a subscription that subscribers are 
>> likely to interpret as "sorry but I'd like you to try again"?
>>
>> The closest I can think of would be send a REFER.
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     Paul
>>
>> Dale Worley wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 16:02 -0400, Dale Worley wrote:
>>>>> But the no-reduce rule has its own trouble. In particular my usual 
>>>>> source of exceptions to everything: 3pcc. The subscriber may think 
>>>>> he is continuing a single subscription. But a middle box may be 
>>>>> moving a subscription from one UAS to another. The new target may 
>>>>> not be willing to support such a long subscription, and so may have 
>>>>> need to reduce it.
>>>> That's an annoyingly realistic problem.
>>> In this situation, can we demand that the middle box terminate the
>>> subscription (rather than shorten it), with the expectation that the
>>> subscriber will create a new subscription?  (In terms of message
>>> traffic, there is little additional load.)
>>> Dale
>> _______________________________________________
>> sipcore mailing list
>> sipcore@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
> 