Subject: Re: SLP API question regarding DAADVERT and SAADVERTinformation

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 14:49:59 -0800 (PST)

>It appears as though your answer affirms my assumption that
>"service:service-agent" SrvRqsts are special cases and MUST be
>multicast, and that DAs MUST not ever respond -- even if the request is
>mistakenly made unicast.  The reason for posting was to alert the RFC
>authors to the fact that this is not clear in the RFC and suggest that
>mis-interpretations of the RFC might result in UA and DA implementations
>that expect DAs to be able to know about SAs in order to be able to
>answer unicast "service:service-agent" SrvRqsts that are sent for
>administrative purposes.
>

That is correct. A SrvRqst for "service:service-agent" should never
be unicast to a DA.

>One last question, in the event that a SrvRqst of type
>"service:service-agent" were unicast to a DA, am I right in assuming
>that the DA would (in addition to a logging entry for the admin's
>attention) respond with an empty SrvRply? 
>

Yes, it would reply with an empty SrvRply. The logging depends on
the logging policy, I suppose.

		jak