|
Dear Christer Holmberg I am gaoyang(gao.yang2@xxxxxxxxxx). And I am at home now :). I MUST point out that: Chapter 4.3.3 is not the solution in theory for race condition problem, it is just BCP level. Chapter 4.3.2 is the solution in theory. And the racing condition problem described here is not same with the one in 6.2 of "draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer". The one in 6.2 of "draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer" does not exist here. Gaoyang > Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:41:59 +0100 > From: christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx > To: gao.yang2@xxxxxxxxxx > CC: wang.libo@xxxxxxxxxx; sipping@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: About "rollback of re-Invite" > > > Hi, > > > >>I also pay high attention to the topic of "rollback of re-Invite". > >>As lots of service is implemented on the network using SIP, and > >>different ways may be carried out by different corporations, it's > necessary to define > >>a complete and clear method to solve the failure when the unsuccessful > re-Invite > >>happens. > > > >I agree, and we thought that having a generic rule, not related to > >specific use-cases, would be the most clear, clean and complete > >solution. > > > >[gaoyang] It is simple and clear. But it disregard nature property of > nest ed transaction. I concluded incorrectness and drawback of such way. > More details in > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gaoyang-sipping-session-state- > analysis-01.txt. > > I agree it's not the most "beautiful" solution - that's why we spent a > long time discussing it. > > >>And the problems "Commit any session parameters that have been > sucessfully changed" > >>metioned in "draft-gaoyang-sipping-session-state-analysis-01.txt" need > further discuss, > >>I think. > > > >The draft does not define a generic rule. It more or less says that > >every time there is a new use-case, the offer/answer rollback aspects > >needs to be documented for that use-case. I think that is something we > >wanted to avoid. > > > >[gaoyang] It is not use-case oriented, but rules/definition oriented. > >And the defini tion of how o/a pairs form nested transaction should be > open for future. > >Such as "a=chain" and so on extension can form more o/a pairs as nested > transaction. It is not use-case. > >We can have a further talk. > > > >If I understand chapter 4.3.3 correct, it says that if you have a > >pending re-INVITE transaction, a NEW modification must be sent in a > >re-INVITE request. That way we would get rid of the race condition > >problem. That is an interesting point. I guess the question is whether > >it's too lake to make such a rule. > > > >[gaoyang] Is the "lake" late? I think it can be BCP, not rules :). > > Perhaps, yes. > > Regards, > > Christer > > > _______________________________________________ > Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping > This list is for NEW devel opment of the application of SIP > Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip > Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP 使用新一代 Windows Live Messenger 轻松交流和共享！ 立刻下载！ |
_______________________________________________ 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
