Re: [sipcore] About SUBSCRIBE method's performance and Out-of-Dialog notification suggestion:

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Tue, 04 January 2011 20:36 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 BEC2E3A6B94 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:36:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.466
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, 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 wVxlt+IwnWx9 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:36:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B05A83A6AC4 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:36:58 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoEGALsTI01AZnwN/2dsb2JhbACWD44dc6NKmGyFSgSEaIYfgx0
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,274,1291593600"; d="scan'208";a="199828928"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Jan 2011 20:39:05 +0000
Received: from [161.44.174.114] (dhcp-161-44-174-114.cisco.com [161.44.174.114]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p04Kd5NZ025688 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 20:39:05 GMT
Message-ID: <4D238569.8010902@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:39:05 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sipcore@ietf.org
References: <OFFE9A94AD.A56650E3-ON4825780E.0019F49D-4825780E.001DA589@zte.com.cn> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B2202288B40@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>, <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE21E5898DE@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B2202288B42@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B2202288B42@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [sipcore] About SUBSCRIBE method's performance and Out-of-Dialog notification suggestion:
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: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 20:36:59 -0000

On 1/4/2011 12:13 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
> ________________________________________
> From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com]
>
> The key here is to understanding what dialog state needs to be maintained, and the proposal as currently described does not seem to change that.
> ________________________________________
>
> I suspect that the question is dialog state maintained in intermediate elements, as many SIP systems coming from traditional telco companies implement intermediate elements as B2BUAs, and often have up to a dozen B2BUAs in what would be expected in SIP to be a single dialog.  I expect Gao will clarify the question when his day arrives.

If this is the issue, then it just points out the obvious - that there 
are consequences to using B2BUAs rather than proxies. If it hurts, don't 
do it.

	Thanks,
	Paul