Hi, >It can. Section 4.4., second and third paragraph. > >But it basically says that you need an explicit indication. I believe that the intent of this wording was to allow for >sip-keep draft. > >In other words, I believe it says that the non-register case can only use keep-alive if there is an explicit mechanism >(e.g., sip-keep).
Ok, that clarifies. But, do we then need to indicate that the procedures in chapter 3.5 and 3.5.1 only apply to registration flows? Because, chapter 3.5 says: "When the UA detects that a flow has failed or that the flow definition has changed, the UA needs to re-register..." ...and chapter 3.5.1 says: "If the client does not receive a pong in response to its ping, it declares the flow dead and opens a new flow in its place." OR, should chapter 3.5 say anything about what happens in a flow failure in the first place? We have decided that the keep-alives is a separate function, and in order for e.g. the keep-draft to refer to it I think it should be described without any outbound procedures attached. Chapter 4 then describes how the keep-alives are used with outbound. Finally, as I asked earlier, since an INVITE can establish a flow, can a INVITE be rejectect with 439? Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ 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
