Subject: [Sipping] Followup on history comment

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:22:58 -0500

In the wg meeting, I made the comment that perhaps the history 
requirements draft should contain language encouraging applications to 
be able to function in the absense of history information. Rohan 
suggested that this was already in the draft.

On a quick re-read, I do not believe this is the case. Section 4.3 
suggests that an application have its behavior in the absense of history 
information be documented. It offers a couple of examples, one of which 
is a voice mail system that is documented to simply not work in the 
absense of history information. This does not seem to me to encourage 
applications to be able to function without history.

Also, to follow up on Robert's comments: Section 3, requirement 8, says 
an entity _shall_ include history info when it handles a redirect or 
refer. Also, 4.1 contains language that an entity should not internally 
retarget without adding history info. Both of these seem to imply that a 
retargeting device either should or must implement history. Both also 
seem to be more implementation concerns that protocol requirements. I 
suspect that was not the intent, considering the other "optionallity" 
language in the draft.

_______________________________________________
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