Re: [Sip] WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-sip-xcapevent-01

[Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at cisco.com>]

Jari Urpalainen wrote:

> the implicit rule _now_ for the notifier is: if you don't get a final 
> 200 ack for a notify, do not send a new request and for a timeout, tear 
> down the session (this is what i propose but as explicit). So what 
> happens with  4xx, 5xx, 6xx etc is unspecified. So the rule for waiting 
> for the 200 OK rules out-of-order. So if you get 4/5/6xx will that mean 
> drop-out possibility ? no imo, since you can't send a new one unless the 
> previous one has been sent successfully. So personally i _could_ go that 
> far that tear down always if return code != 200, but probably some 
> intelligent notifiers could resolve e.g. 413, though i have my doubts....

It is always be possible to get a 401 or 407 response to a NOTIFY, and 
it should be possible to retry it with the proper credentials. That 
ought not screw up the subscription. This could happen because your 
nonce expired on a long lived subscription.

Admittedly it would be pretty odd to have authorization in the NOTIFY 
direction, but it could be possible I think.

	Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip