Subject: Re: [Sip] Comments on "unify" draft

From: Vijay Gurbani <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:12:16 -0600

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> In general, it would be helpful to get general feedback of the form 
> "seems like the right direction".
[...]

William Marshall wrote:
> I may be in the minority, but I think that a problem in 2543 should
> be fixed in the next version of the RFC, and that HERFP qualifies
> as a bug in 2543.  It seems wrong to have a "supported:" tag defined
> for a fix for a bug.

For whatever it is worth, I agree with Bill here.  We should fix the HERFP
problem in the bis.  Solving HERFP through an extension (which almost
everyone will need to implement for a production grade system) is probably
taking the easy way out.

> The early media, and handling of multiple early media streams, and
> resource reservation before alerting, all seem to be more "extensions"
> than "bugs", so I'd agree with them being in separate drafts.  But if
> COMET (or UPDATE) is defined in bis, these drafts would be short.

If the unify I-D is accepted, I really think that COMET (or UPDATE, or
whatever method name we choose) should be part of the bis.  I understand
we do not want to delay the -06bis any longer, but if the unify I-D solves
these problems, then the solution belongs in the RFC, not as an extension.

Just my $0.02.

Regards,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani  vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Internet Software and eServices Group 
Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440
Naperville, Illinois 60566     Voice: +1 630 224 0216   Fax: +1 630 713 0184

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:46:02 -0500

> everyone will need to implement for a production grade system) is

No, I don't think so. I do not think its needed for a production grade
system yet. It happens under select conditions, namely, when forking
occurs AND the UAS are going to reject the request because some aspect
of it is not acceptable. That includes 401 and 415 mainly, and since few
are doing e2e authentication, and even fewer sending non-SDP content in
requests that will fork, well, its not an urgent problem.

It will be an urgent problem when we begin to roll out SDPng, and when
we begin to see more e2e security.

As I argued in my response to Bill, there is a pure practical issue
here, timely completion of bis. I consider the mechanisms needed to
solve this problem sufficiently standalone, and sufficiently different
from general sip operation, and sufficiently new (in terms of requring
supported/require), that an extension makes sense in any case.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.            72 Eagle Rock Avenue
Chief Scientist                         First Floor
dynamicsoft                             East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                 FAX: (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                  PH:  (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com