> -----Original Message----- > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:07 AM > To: Hadriel Kaplan > > On Apr 1, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Hardier Kaplan wrote: > > 1) The mechanism does not scale, for large SSP's. (is this only meant > for small deployments?) > > Why is this any worse that say a registration? I don't buy this assertion > that it does not scale. Well of course anything "scales" if you throw enough money at it. I guess it would have been clearer to say "it does not scale in a cost-effective manner relative to the benefit it provides". As you know it *is* actually more signaling messages and heavier than Registration during restart, but let's just assumes it scales no worse than Registration. Is that a good thing? Registration provides something tangibly valuable (and unavoidably necessary). How does this config framework model *require* the subscriptions in order to properly function, other than just through text saying it does? For some folks it will be very useful/good, for others a waste of money and complexity. And the way this is written makes the Subscription portion now a critical/blocking component in getting SIP service up and working (unless I'm misreading it). You and I both know vendors have spent *years* perfecting SIP Registration for avalanche-type events, to get service back up as quickly as possible. Changing that model in a way that cannot be turned off/disabled is just asking for trouble. BTW, I wouldn't care so much if this were just some random individual draft or only meant for private Enterprise deployments. But this is really a Sip-Forum draft, meant for SSP's of any size. -hadriel _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf