Yeah, I think we should say that this feature is intended to be used by Proxies and not by UAS. The reason it is allowed for UAS is for B2BUA who often act in many ways like a proxy.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 14:04 > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip] Draft submission: draft-ietf-sip-199-00 > > So the text certainly needs to permit this case. > > But I think some care is needed about a UAS that is really at > the end of the end of the stream (downstream, where the > packets soak into the > ground.) Do we want to allow that UAS to send 199 responses? > If so, what if any guidelines should be given? > > Seems to me we need a pretty strong SHOULD NOT here, with the > B2BUA being the known exception. > > Paul > > Francois Audet wrote: > > Yeah, exactly. > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 12:11 > >> To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [Sip] Draft submission: draft-ietf-sip-199-00 > >> > >> > >> > >> Francois Audet wrote: > >>> I can think of one scenario... > >>> > >>> If the UAS in question is actually some sort of B2BUA. > >> OK. That is a good one. > >> > >> That is certainly a reason not to forbid it. > >> > >> And in that case we would expect the B2BUA to follow the rules for > >> proxies about handling and generating 199. > > > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
