Re: Sip-199-02: majors and nits from Robert

On Nov 24, 2008, at 6:52 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

Other than for testing for non-compliant proxies and UAs in your  
signaling path, aka "diagnostics".

--
Dean




_______________________________________________
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