Re: [Sipping] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sipping-sbc-funcs-05.txt

[Hadriel Kaplan <[e-mail]>]

Good comment - I'm rather surprised that this paragraph is in there, because it's not really true.  Many SBCs do have a deterministic way of determining the value, it's just that some of them don't or are provisioned not to (there are pros/cons to doing it).

Anyway, as one among many data points, my prof-services folks tell me most people use 30 secs, if they stick to a fixed number. (although apparently this is regional in nature, and in a few parts of the world 20 secs is also common)

-hadriel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> [e-mail]
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 10:02 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Bob
> Penfield; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sipping-sbc-funcs-05.txt
>
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>
> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-sipping-sbc-funcs-05.txt
> Reviewer: David L. Black
> Review Date: 4 April 2008
> IESG Telechat date: 10 April 2008
>
> Summary:
> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
> should be fixed before publication.
>
> Comments:
> The authors have addressed all of the comments from the Gen-ART
> review of the -04 version of this draft - that was nicely done,
> and many thanks to the authors.
>
> The draft could be published as an RFC in its current form, but
> there's one nit that really should be dealt with:
>
> One of the comments was addressed by adding the last sentence
> to this paragraph in Section 3.4.2:
>
>    There is also a problem related to the method how SBCs choose the
>    value for the validity of a registration period.  This value should
>    be as high as possible, but it still needs to be low enough to
>    maintain the NAT binding.  Typically SBCs do not have any
>    deterministic method for choosing a suitable value.  However, SBCs
>    can just use a sub-optimal, relatively small value which usually
>    works.
>
> Please provide an example of "a sub-optimal, relatively small value
> which usually works".  This merits careful consideration, as
> implementers may well use the value provided as an example.  One
> possibility is to use 15 seconds as the example and cite Section 3.5
> of draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines-06.txt (as an informative
> reference) for the source of this value (and a useful place to
> look for further discussion of this topic).
>
> Minor nit: Section 3.1.3:
>
>    (i.e., information related to network elements is beeing hidden),
> Extra "e" here ------------------------------------> ^^^^^^
>
> idnits 2.08.05 ran clean.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> [phone]             FAX: [phone]
> [e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments of core SIP