Subject: [Sipping] draft-vakil-sipping-notify-pause-01

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:45:26 -0500

I think this document is generally heading in the right direction. The 
one architectural concern I have is that right now, as defined, an 
initial SUBSCRIBE with "notify=off" is specified so that no immediate 
NOTIFY is sent. The initial NOTIFY in a dialog is critically important 
to handle forked SUBSCRIBE requests properly. (Consider: if a subscriber 
includes "notify=off" in an initial subscription, and that SUBSCRIBE 
message forks to three destinations, all three of which accept the 
subscription, then the subscriber will never find out about the three 
separate subscriptions...)

I think it needs to be made clear that the _initial_ NOTIFY sent in a 
dialog cannot be suppressed using this extension.

/a

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

---

From: Mohammad Vakil <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:40:54 -0700

Adam -

Thanks for the review and comment!

I think stopping first notify sounds like over-optimization (as this draft is about controlling stream of notifications). And in most of the cases, first NOTIFY is needed to get the initial event state. Therefore, I agree that initial SUB should always generate one notification. What we've to communicate is pause notification stream after the first one (without having to do send another SUB with notify=off), which probably can be better communicated with notify=once in the initial subscription.

Thanks,
-Mohammad

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Roach [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 7:45 PM
To: Mohammad Vakil
Cc: sipping WG
Subject: draft-vakil-sipping-notify-pause-01

/a