Subject: [Sip] New version of sip-keep draft

From: "Christer Holmberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:56:40 +0100

Hi,

I've submitted a new version of the sip-keep draft.

Based on the comments received, I have made the text more general to
cover also proxy-to-proxy use-cases.

I've also added the outbound dialog flow use-case, where an explicit
indication for keep-alive is needed (see Outbound draft).

You can also find the draft at:

http://users.piuha.net/cholmber/drafts/draft-holmberg-sip-keep-02.txt

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-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: [email-masked] (Juha Heinanen)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:38:57 +0200

i don't understand why uac needs to act as a stun client.  why don't you
simply say that the uac must be able to send double crlf message to the
edge proxy?  stun draft is 51 pages long and requiring keepalive
implementer to read it is clearly an overkill.

-- juha

---

From: "Christer Holmberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:28:30 +0100

>i don't understand why uac needs to act as a stun client.  
>why don't you simply say that the uac must be able to send 
>double crlf message to the edge proxy?  stun draft is 51 
>pages long and requiring keepalive implementer to read it is 
>clearly an overkill.

Perhaps. But, the whole idea is to use the keep-alive methods defined in
Outbound, and Outbound says stun.

Regards,

Christer

---

From: [email-masked] (Juha Heinanen)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:12:36 +0200

> Outbound, and Outbound says stun.

this is yet another example of badly organized i-d structure.  keepalive
mechanisms should have been defined in its own i-d, not in stun or
outbound i-d.  all of these drafts should go back to drawing board.

-- juha

---

From: "Christer Holmberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:14:55 +0100

>>Perhaps. But, the whole idea is to use the keep-alive methods defined
in Outbound, and Outbound says stun.
> 
>this is yet another example of badly organized i-d structure. 
>keepalive mechanisms should have been defined in its own 
>i-d, not in stun or outbound i-d.  all of these drafts should 
>go back to drawing board.

If people want to actually define the keep-alive mechanism in the keep
draft that's fine with me.

BUT, I have done the draft based on the current working assumptions,
where the keep-alive mechanism is defined in Outbound.

Regards,

Christer