On Nov 24, 2008, at 6:52 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
Hadriel Kaplan wrote:It occurs to me maybe we're talking past each other. When I think of the *Require* header, I think of what does any random endpoint/ gateway getting this request have to support for this to succeed. I can see no value in having that behavior, and plenty of harm in doing so. I don't want a UAC maker to ever think it can require UAS' to implement 199 in order for its request to succeed.-----Original Message----- From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg at ericsson.com] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 4:24 PMIf we can't think of any legitimate use for an option-tag in Require,why should we allow it?Because there may be a legitimate use for it tomorrow, or next week, ornext year.But maybe what you're talking about is *Proxy-Require*?Well, we know tht Proxy-Require is way more evil.Even so, it probably is the thing that a UAC might want to use if it knew there were proxies doing the forking.Trouble is - B2BUAs cause a lot of trouble with Require/Proxy- Require. I suspect that Proxy-Require should have been MiddleBox- Require, and so applied to B2BUAs.So if you really need 199 responses any time a forked invite might have been abandoned, then I think you must use *both* Require and Proxy-Require. But that is pretty certain to guarantee that your call will fail.This has convinced me that there is no valid use of Require / Proxy- Require.
Other than for testing for non-compliant proxies and UAs in your signaling path, aka "diagnostics".
-- Dean _______________________________________________ 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