Subject: RE: [Simple] Default 1 minute inactivity timer in MSRP

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:31:35 -0500

Ben Campbell [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

> 1) Do others agree with Miguel that we should make the inactivity 
> timeout negotiable?

Having tried to go down this path several times, I want to
emphasize that I am very strongly opposed to any mechanism
for negotiation of this timeout.

> 2) If not, can anyone suggest a better way to choose the 
> standard value?

Nope. One minute sounds good. One hour sounds good. I don't
think I'd want to go much outside that range.

However, it sounds like there's some objection to something
as small as one minute, so we need to negotiate an arbitrary
value here on the list. I'll start the bidding at twelve
minutes.

/a

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:16:31 -0500

On reflection, I think I agree that a higher value than 1 minute makes 
sense. One use case I expect to see a lot for message sessions is the 
chat room, or text conference, where it will be common for one 
participant to receive a lot more than they send.

Of course, at the same time, larger numbers reduce the ability of a 
relay to prune dead sessions.

So I bid 5 minutes.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:16:31 -0500

So I bid 5 minutes.