Hi, > [Gao] RFC3261: > If a UA receives a non-2xx final response to a re-INVITE, the session > parameters MUST remain unchanged, as if no re-INVITE had been issued. > > However, the > failure of the re-INVITE does not cause the existing call to fail - > the session continues using the previously negotiated > characteristics. yes, as I explained in my original email, the consensus in the WG has been that we are willing to lose this atomicity property. It is a tradeoff between keeping that property and doing the right thing. > [Gao] Why think after 4xx, the "most" case is that user prefer to using > the media negotiated in Re-INVITE. > I think rejecting is the "most" case. > But this is subjective branching :). the assumption we are working on is that the user would prefer that the failure of the re-INVITE does not trigger a sudden media change. That is, the media session would continue unchanged when the 4xx for the re-INVITE arrives. > if a stream is rejected, it will not be in use. We do not indent to > change that rule anywhere. > > [Gao] I think the usage should be restricted by signaling, while not end > users' consciousness. :) We are talking about signalling here. Cheers, Gonzalo _______________________________________________ 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
