[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Simple] comments on draft-ietf-simple-view-sharing-00
Robert Sparks wrote:
Is this a real problem? "Immediate" NOTIFY doesn't have a requirement
around a specific time; it seems reasonable to wait for whatever
backend DB operations are required before you send a NOTIFY. You need
to do that anyway to figure out what presence document to send them.
It really does have to be immediate - in the same sense that responses
to Non-INVITE requests have to be immediate.
There's a race.
The subscriber will stop listening for NOTIFYs from other forks than the
one that corresponds with the 200 OK very shortly after that 200 OK
arrives.
Well, in the case of presence at least there isn't going to be forking;
RFC3856 forbids multiple dialogs from being created from forked
branches. Particularly in the case of federation I wouldn't expect to
see this happen even if it were allowed.
Thinking about other event packages though, I actually couldn't find a
value for this timer in RFC 3265. Is one defined?
-Jonathan R.
--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 499 Thornall St.
Cisco Fellow Edison, NJ 08837
Cisco, Voice Technology Group
jdrosen at cisco.com
http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (408) 902-3084
http://www.cisco.com
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple