Subject: [Sip] sip-history-info-02: counter starter

From: "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:30:38 -0500

In section 4.3.3.1, the draft states "The index for this entry is RECOMMENDED to start at 1."

On the one hand, why would the first proxy start at anything other than 1?

On the other hand, I could see doing it for debugging purposes: I set proxy A to start at 1000 and proxy B to start at 100000, and then I get an extra level of (non-interoperable, but yet still useful for debugging purposes) history information.

I would either state some reasons why it is only recommended (or should), or make it a must.  Personally, I like debugging stuff, so I would leave it as is.

rjs: I would also plan on a torture test where a proxy receives a message with a history-info index of, say, 32767 :-)

_______________________________________________
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: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:01:30 -0600

That's a good point;  I honestly can't remember if there was a specific
reason why we had a RECOMMENDED rather than a MUST.  But,  I don't think it
would necessarily cause interoperability problems, it just would make it a
bit more difficult for the end applications to handle as they would likely
have to normalize the indices back to 1 (I can't see the value in an
application in wanting to use or know that different proxies might start at
different indices and that certainly wasn't the intent).  So, unless someone
has a compelling reason why we should keep it as RECOMMENDED, I'll make the
change to MUST in the next rev.

Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Burger [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 7:31 AM
To: Barnes, Mary [NGC:B622:EXCH]
Cc: SIP List (E-mail)
Subject: sip-history-info-02: counter starter

In section 4.3.3.1, the draft states "The index for this entry is
RECOMMENDED to start at 1."

On the other hand, I could see doing it for debugging purposes: I set proxy
A to start at 1000 and proxy B to start at 100000, and then I get an extra
level of (non-interoperable, but yet still useful for debugging purposes)
history information.

I would either state some reasons why it is only recommended (or should), or
make it a must.  Personally, I like debugging stuff, so I would leave it as
is.

rjs: I would also plan on a torture test where a proxy receives a message
with a history-info index of, say, 32767 :-)