Aki, That's hardly a show stopper.
Hisham On 31/07/07, Aki Niemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > This is a potential show-stopper issue that Rohan brought up in the SIP > WG session last week. > > Currently, subnot-etags offers two modes of operation. In the first, the > body of the SUBSCRIBE-generated NOTIFY is suppressed, and in the other, > the entire NOTIFY is suppressed, and a new response 204 (No > Notification) is generated instead. > > The latter is a considerable change to how SIP events works, and might > cause a middlebox that tracks the SIP dialog to basically barf, thinking > the dialog expires when it in fact gets refreshed. > > Do folks think this is a problem? It would be great if some SBC vendors > could check what their implementation does with SUBSCRIBE dialogs. > > Personally, I'd hate to hack around boxes that people claim are doing > something fishy. But if this is a real problem, then subnot-etags would > basically need to be reduced to just suppressing bodies of NOTIFYs. > > Cheers, > Aki > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip >
_______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
