[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Simple] Can we deprecate UDP for presence?


Something in this direction and at the receiver side it will be possible to
reject presence messages on UDP.

I agree that we will need to start with requirements in SIPPING and my intention
was to gauge if it will be an issue or TCP is implemented by default for
presence.

Thanks
--Avshalom


"DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <drage at alcatel-lucent.com>

28/11/2007 15:57

To
Avshalom Houri/Haifa/IBM at IBMIL, "simple mailing list" <simple at ietf.org>
cc
Subject
RE: [Simple] Can we deprecate UDP for presence?





Are you suggesting that a sender has to look at the event header in a SIP message before deciding which transport protocol to use, and decide whether it is presence related.
 
This is an updates RFC 3261 issue, i.e. not for SIMPLE to write the RFC, merely to determine if there are requirements in this area and pass them to SIP.
 
regards
 
Keith

From: Avshalom Houri [mailto:AVSHALOM at il.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:28 AM
To: simple mailing list
Subject: [Simple] Can we deprecate UDP for presence?

As we know it is not easy to scale presence.

Since presence RFCs and drafts were created after RFC 3261 that mandates both
UDP and TCP support (opposed to 2543 that mandated only UDP), can we say that
most if not all presence client will use TCP?

If we could deprecate UDP for presence then we can think about several traffic
optimizations where the overhead is due to the UDP support of SIP?

Comments?

--Avshalom 
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple