Just combining both the discussions here.
-----------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
>If the call has been forked, and provisional responses with multiple
to-tags have been sent back to the UAC, then it is certain that the UAC
has >*some* resources tied up with each early dialog. The 199 will allow
some of that to be released.
>Are you suggesting that the UAC indicate if it considers those
resources to be sufficient to justify processing an extra message? Or
maybe you >are just concerned with the likelihood that the UAC doesn't
support 199, so that the message will just be ignored in any case?
> I could go either way on this one.
> Paul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
> Right - Require is inappropriate. Supported is certainly possible. I
think it would simply mean that the UAC understands the significance of
> 199 and so is prepared to take advantage of it if received. I see no
reason why you would change it on a call by call basis. The resources
aren't > committed at the time of the INVITE - rather at the time the
provisional response is received, so doing on a per-call basis wouldn't
make much > > sense.
[Ashish Saxena] I am concerned about both (justify processing of an
extra message & UAC does not support 199). I brought up this discussion
with the assumption that UAC (mostly) is in better situation to
understand about resources reserved at its end. But Christer pointed out
that even intermediate entities may also be interested in releasing
resources asap. So if an entity knows that it has reserved resources and
would appreciate if they can be relinquished earlier, then it can simply
put "Supported" header to indicate entities downstream that it can
handle 199. This is why I was suggesting it to be call by call basis.
But with Paul's reasoning, it will be good to have for all
calls. It is easier to implement also. (otherwise UAC will have to put
extra intelligence to calculate whether it needs 199 in this call).
IMO, Supported header will >
a) Will stop proxies sending 199 because they would already know
that UAC does not understand it anyways.
b) Reduce some 199s on network because of (a).
Best Regards,
Ashish Saxena
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 9:20 PM
To: Christer Holmberg
Cc: Avasarala Ranjit-A20990; Ashish Saxena (WT01 - Telecom Equipment);
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sip] Draft submission: draft-ietf-sip-199-00
Right - Require is inappropriate. Supported is certainly possible. I
think it would simply mean that the UAC understands the significance of
199 and so is prepared to take advantage of it if received. I see no
reason why you would change it on a call by call basis. The resources
aren't committed at the time of the INVITE - rather at the time the
provisional response is received, so doing on a per-call basis wouldn't
make much sense.
Paul
Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Can we use Require:199 to indicate to proxy to send 199?
>
> No. The Require header is only applicaple to a UAS.
>
> You can use Proxy-Require for proxies, but the problem is that you
would
> require this from EVERY proxy in the path.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 10:24 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Draft submission: draft-ietf-sip-199-00
>
>
> Probably everybody is busy. Any thoughts on this one.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Ashish Saxena
> 877-5570
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ashish Saxena (WT01 - Telecom Equipment)
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 10:56 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Sip] Draft submission: draft-ietf-sip-199-00
>
> Hi Christer,
> From Section 4 (Client Behaviour) part of this draft, I
> understood that primary objective of this draft is to give indication
to
> UAC to release resources, if any. I am little worried about extra
> messaging that will be seen because of 199 implementation. Can there
be
> a way to tell proxies and UAS downstream that UAC has some resources
> reserved for this call and would be interested in receiving 199, if
> possible?
>
> IMO, UAC (mostly) is in better understanding of the resources that it
> has reserved for a particular call. So UAC can selectively add
something
> in INVITE to tell downstream proxies/ UAS' about its interest.
>
> IMO, we can have a package for 199 and UAC can use "Supported" header
to
> indicate entities downstream that it would be interested in getting
199
> for this *particular* call. Implicitly it would mean that UAC has
> reserved some resources. I understand that we would changing the
meaning
> of "Supported" header on per call basis :-(. Something else may be?
>
> Comments please.
>
> Best Regards,
> Ashish Saxena
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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
