|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Hi Michale, sorry to be late answering this mail. see my comments in line. Sal Michael Froman wrote:
Resending in case this got lost in the noise over the last week. Begin forwarded message:From: Michael Froman <mfroman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: March 4, 2009 10:00:10 AM CST To: sipping@xxxxxxxx Subject: Comments on draft-niemi-sipping-event-throttle-08.txt Hello all,I have a question/concern about the closing paragraphs of 4.2.2, 5.2.2 and 6.3.2. Each of these paragraphs deals with retransmissions of NOTIFY requests and resetting the throttle (or force or average) based on the completion of the previous transaction. Given that the notifier and the subscriber can have different ideas of when the transaction ends (up to T1 I believe), I want to verify the reasoning behind these paragraphs.
[Sal] here the last paragraph Retransmissions of NOTIFY requests are not affected by the throttle, i.e., the throttle only applies to the generation of new transactions. In other words, the throttle is reset only after the previous transaction has completed.
[Sal] that is exactly the point. Throttle/force/average do not break or modify in any way the retransmission mechanism.Is the point that throttle/force/average not break the retransmission mechanism
[Sal] While I agree that this behaviour (waiting for the transaction to complete) can not always give "predictable" results and that is bad especially if you want use it to track the location of a UA, However making "throttle/force/average" timers independent (so to say) from the the retransmission mechanism can lead to situation where the timer fires and then you should send out a new NOTIFY when there is still a retrasmission of a previous one. Any thought on how to solve this situation without break the retransmission mechanism?or that, for example, retransmissions modify the time between forced NOTIFYs by the time taken for the retransmissions to successfully complete the transaction? An example is the case when the NOTIFY gets to the subscriber quickly, but the 200OK is slow to make it back to the notifier. Start with a force value of 2 seconds. The subscriber thinks the transaction is over and is now expecting a forced NOTIFY 2 seconds from now. The notifier has not completed the transaction. The next NOTIFY from the notifier can happen anytime up to T1 + 2 sec.I agree that throttle/force/average should not interfere with the normal retransmission mechanism. However, I don't agree that waiting for the transaction to complete before starting the throttle/force/average timer is going to give much benefit (or always predictable results).
_______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP