Subject: RE: [Simple] 200 vs. 202

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:30:19 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David R. Oran [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 11:35 AM
> To: [email-masked]; 'Christian Huitema'; 'Brazier Lachlan';
> 'Paul Kyzivat '; 'Jonathan Rosenberg '
> Cc: ''Brian Stucker' '; 'simple '
> Subject: RE: [Simple] 200 vs. 202
> 
> 
> There's a set of caller preferences to control forking. From
> draft-ietf-caller-pref-04.txt:
> 
> 
>         fork-feature: This feature indicates whether a proxy 
> should fork
>              a request, or proxy to only a single address. If 
> the server
>              is requested not to fork, the server SHOULD proxy the
>              request to the "best" address (generally the one with the
>              highest q value). The feature is ignored if 
> "redirect" has
>              been requested.

Its worth noting that the proposal to accept a single NOTIFY amounts to the
same thing, except that we ignore any forked branches rather than having
them not occur in the first place. I should also point out that caller
preferences is optional to obey, so you would have to handle the forking
anyway.

-Jonathan R.

---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com
_______________________________________________
simple mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/simple