Subject: RE: [SIP] Comments on Session Timer draft

From: Linden deCarmo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 09:46:35 -0400

>Maybe the draft could say that *any* message (sent or received)
would
>refresh the timer? 

I think this is too open ended.  Since it is possible to create user-defined
methods, this would imply that a server implementing the session-timer
support would have to parse all packets, regardless if it understood the
method or not.  In addition, how could you return a 501 (Not Implemented) if
you were looking for and using a header in the packet?

I much prefer standardizing on a specific method.  Greatly simplifies the
implementation. 

Linden deCarmo
Netspeak Corporation
902 Clint Moore Road
Suite 104
Boca Raton, FL 33487

_______________________________________________
SIP mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/sip

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 10:26:57 -0400

I agree. Lets keep it simple. There are clear benefits to using
re-INVITE, as we have discussed in the past.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg                       72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (732) 741-4778
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen         PHONE: (732) 741-7244
http://www.dynamicsoft.com