Bob Penfield wrote:
> On the topic of UAS's sending 199, I actually think things will work better
> if they did. I know there has been lots of discussion about B2BUAs doing it,
> but consider a UAS that is aware that it has multiple registered contacts
> (via presence or registration event package or other means), it might want to
> send the 199 to be sure that it does reach the UAC (in case the proxy does
> not support it).
Bob, I don't understand the point you are making. Can you explain further?
Are you talking about a case where there is a forking proxy in front of
the UAS, and the proxy doesn't know about 199, and the UAS wants to send
the 199 to give the UAC a warning in case the final response is delayed
by the proxy?
While there may be some cases where that would be advantageous, in many
others it would just increase the message traffic for every failing
call. And I don't see how the UAS would be able to discern the cases
where it would be advantageous. I guess it could be configured in those
cases where all inbound calls are forked, but how many such cases are there?
Paul
_______________________________________________
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
