Subject: [Sipping] draft-niemi-sipping-event-throttle-08 and forcing notifications when state has not changed

From: Byron Campen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:59:33 -0500

It appears that the normative language in this draft requires the  
notifier to send a notification if the force interval has elapsed,  
even when state has not changed since the last notification. Reading  
over some past discussion on list, I got the impression that this was  
not the intent. So which is it?

Best regards,
Byron Campen

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:04:59 -0500

Byron,

Just a note that this document has migrated over to the SIPCORE WG (to
be completed) and the document name changed enroute. Here's the new
version:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-event-rate-control-00

So, you might want to jump over to SIPCORE with this question.

Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Byron Campen
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 5:00 PM
To: sipping
Subject: [Sipping] draft-niemi-sipping-event-throttle-08 and
forcingnotifications when state has not changed

	It appears that the normative language in this draft requires
the notifier to send a notification if the force interval has elapsed,
even when state has not changed since the last notification. Reading
over some past discussion on list, I got the impression that this was
not the intent. So which is it?

Best regards,
Byron Campen

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:21:21 -0400

I would say yes, the intention is to force an update even if nothing
changed.

Brian

> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 6:00 PM
> To: sipping
> Subject: [Sipping] draft-niemi-sipping-event-throttle-08 and forcing
> notifications when state has not changed
> 
> notifier to send a notification if the force interval has elapsed, even
> when state has not changed since the last notification. Reading over
> some past discussion on list, I got the impression that this was not
> the intent. So which is it?
> 
> Best regards,
> Byron Campen