-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Lawrence [mailto:xmlscott(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:37 AM
To: Hadriel Kaplan
Well, one could argue that a provider could cause the returned SIP url
for the change notice subscription to be one for which there is no
routing (return 'Link: <sip:devnull.example.org>'). By the rules, the
UA would periodically make a DNS request to try to find it, but would be
allowed to use the configuration data. Silly, but allowed.
Right, but the since that would make it an "unknown validity" config, and the
requirements do not mandate any UA to *use* an "unknown validity" config... do
you see a problem?
Instead of getting into an unknown-behavior state, why don't you simply allow
the HTTP response to NOT have a Link header, or define a NULL URI to use - and
then state that it means there is no Subscription service and the UA MUST
consider the HTTP-based config valid?
No one is going to be forced to use any of this specification. If you
don't want the features it provides (automatic initial configuration
with prompt updates), then don't use it.
So we should go define another profile which is a textual copy of this one, but
changes two sentences?? Is that really good for SIP or the SIP-Forum?
At the risk of repeating myself, I want to make sure that one reason for
using SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY for the change notices is clear: there is no
other existing standard way to address a specific User Agent.
Right, I understand that you have no other way to do X. Fine, so specify how
to do X. Don't mandate that X be used with Y, when Y does not depend on X to
function properly, and X is not trivial.
-hadriel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf