Re: Sip-199-02: majors and nits from Robert
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 4:24 PM >>> If we can't think of any legitimate use for an option-tag in Require, >> why should we allow it? >> >> Because there may be a legitimate use for it tomorrow, or next week, or >> next year. > > It occurs to me maybe we're talking past each other. When I think of the *Require* header, I think of what does any random endpoint/gateway getting this request have to support for this to succeed. I can see no value in having that behavior, and plenty of harm in doing so. I don't want a UAC maker to ever think it can require UAS' to implement 199 in order for its request to succeed. > But maybe what you're talking about is *Proxy-Require*? Well, we know tht Proxy-Require is way more evil. Even so, it probably is the thing that a UAC might want to use if it knew there were proxies doing the forking. Trouble is - B2BUAs cause a lot of trouble with Require/Proxy-Require. I suspect that Proxy-Require should have been MiddleBox-Require, and so applied to B2BUAs. So if you really need 199 responses any time a forked invite might have been abandoned, then I think you must use *both* Require and Proxy-Require. But that is pretty certain to guarantee that your call will fail. This has convinced me that there is no valid use of Require / Proxy-Require. Thanks, 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