Subject: RE: [Sipping] draft-niemi-sipping-subnot-issues-00: NOTIFY timeouts

From: "Gordon Ledgard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:49:05 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf
> Of Aki Niemi
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 10:30 AM
> To: Gordon Ledgard
> Cc: SIPPING WG; ext Adam Roach
> Subject: Re: [Sipping] draft-niemi-sipping-subnot-issues-00: NOTIFY
> timeouts
> 
> ext Gordon Ledgard wrote:
> > In other words, the notifier sends NOTIFY at t=0s, t=0.5s, t=1.5s,
> > t=2.5s
> > t=4.5s,  as per the transmission backoff, and then the agent waits
> > (e.g.) 2 minutes, and tries again. Then 4 minutes later. And only
THEN
> > does it decide
> > to yank the subscription.
> 
> Yes, this is along the lines I was thinking as well. In addition to
the
> backoff, the NOTIFYs could, for instance, be sent without a body, and
> with something like a subscription-state: zombie;reason=timeout header
> field.
> 

Perfect.  That way the subscriber would be made aware that something was
missed, and could take appropriate action depending on the nature of the
notification semantics.

Regards,
Gordon

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

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