Explanation for semantics of "a new modification" //: RE: About "rollback of re-Invite"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




What is a new modification? This is another good question people once asked.
Without clear definition for extension, anything or its combination defined in chapter 8 of RFC3264 MUST be treated as a new modification, that is:
Adding a Media Stream,
Removing a Media Stream,
Modifying a Media Stream,
Putting a Unicast Media Stream on Hold(or from on hold to active)
"Modifying a Media Stream" can be further divided into:
Modifying Address, Port or Transport,
Changing the Set of Media Formats,
Changing Media Types,
Changing Attributes.

And if we can say something form a nested transaction, there MUST be correspond definition. In RFCs, there are two of such definition:
1. Precondition
It is defined in RFC3312(Quality-of-Service precondition)\4032(Precondition Framework)\5027(Security Preconditions), and the suspending\resuming semantic of session modification is clear. So, it is a typical nested transaction.

2. Intuitionistic(user point of view) requirement for rejecting session modification
It is defined in RFC3261. From users's point of view, it is a kind of late committment. And it is useful for users to rejecting session modification.


3. 3GPP usage of Offer/Answer to refine(reduce) codec set
In chapter 8.3.2 of RFC3264, refining(reduce) codec set is a kind of modification, and there is no definition as RFC3312 to define sub-transaction concept. So, I do not think this kind of Offer/Answer can be treated as sub-transaction of the original one in semantics of current RFCs.
And if one side send a new UPDATE during the pending Re-INVITE, the other side can has two choose:
o if the UA can accept the UPDATE, and after Offer/Answer, the modification MUST be committed.
o if the UA can not accept the UPDATE(for example, can not accept it without the user's permition), the UA MUST reject UPDATE.
I MUST point out that in RFCs semantics, the third rule should be omitted.

But 3GPP really has such usage. And I think the original requirement of obeys the concept of nested transaction, so I list it here.

And the classification of a new modification is quit simple. At list, it is not harder than the judgement of whether Precondition has been satisfied.

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
_______________________________________________
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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Announce]     [IETF Discussion]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Big List of Linux Books]

  Powered by Linux