> Just to support Christer: I was initially in favor of the > full rollback approach. But the discussion showed that it > had the race condition that Christer mentions. We > considered introducing additional machinery to resolve > that race, but that just complicated things further, > especially backward compatibility, for an obscure case. > > So, I have come to understand that there is no ideal > answer, and so am satisfied with the one that was chosen. As mentioned within an August thread, I'm not necessarily opposed to the adjustment. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg16073.html However as mentioned within an email I sent Friday, I'm currently still unsure of the specifics of the chosen approach. What is the meaning of "successfully" updated/changed as criteria to not rollback session parameters? What are the rules concerning non session parameters (such as Contact)? http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg16567.html > I realize that not everybody knows all the history of > this, so we explain it again, but we can't re-open the > decision at this point. Since the decision has been made, hopefully somebody knows the answers to the above questions. Thanks, Brett _______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP
