Subject: RE: [Sip] Outbound Issues: slides 3 and 4

From: Jeroen Van Bemmel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:03:23 +0200

Rohan's proposal is exactly what you dont want: sending something just 
to find out if the receiver supports the protocol.

[jvb] What he means is sending something that is not SIP, Rohan's proposal is pure SIP

My opinion is that NOTHING should be mentioned in the internet draft 
about this at all. Its an implementation issue, imo, how a 
misconfigured UA should behave.

[jvb] This discussion is about defining what it means for a UA to be compliant, not about misconfigured UAs. The rule should be that a UA does not STUN unless it is "reasonably" sure that the other side supports it. A checkbox marked by the user is not reasonable. Some people argue that discovered ';keep-alive=stun' is reasonable. An indication from the element itself is at least more reliable than the former, but nothing is 100%. 

[jvb] Given that the indication from the target can be obtained relatively cheaply by piggybacking on existing signalling, IMHO that SHOULD be the norm

Regards,

Jeroen

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip