/********* the mail to Tom ************
Tom:
Thanks for you attention.
Answer for you:
In fact, by the original mail from the Chair, the modification will be letted alone, without any help of hacked software.
And the only way is waiting for user's Self-discipline Re-INVITE.
If we make new UA equipment, I can do it. (althogh I do not prefer)
But for current using ones, it will be Compatible issue.
There is no fault from users and current UA equipment.
That's the difference, I think.
Waiting for you more comments. And I like talking this style.
Gao.
********end of the mail to Tom ***********/
By my view, there are two main points:
1. "hacker way" is user's behavior, but "Let alone the modification" is system behavior.
2. If user think they rejected the modification, "Let alone the modification" can send information which user do not want to be sent.
| Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@xxxxxxxxx>
2009-03-02 04:42 |
|
I just tried to catch up on the discussion here. I mostly see circular
argument/counterargument with no changing of position.
The only thing I have seen here that seems new is Gonzalo's proposal
about "media in use".
I see a lot of issues raised about UAs using media they are not being
charged for. As Tom Taylor said, this is not a new argument, or unique
to this situation. There is always the possibility that two UAs will
attempt to communicate using media they did not signal in an obvious way
in the signaling channel. If they succeed in doing so, it is presumably
because they are using a media path that they have access to independent
of the signaling. In that case the intermediary who feels it should be
charging for this is simply hoping to charge for a service it is not
providing, and so has no real grievance.
The case where this might be a real problem is if a middlebox controls
the media path (what resources are assigned, and whether media is /
isn't permitted to flow), and yet the rules about session state are such
that the middlebox and the endpoints have differing understandings of
whether the active session includes a given media path or not. IMO that
is the key issue that needs to be nailed down.
Thanks,
Paul
gaoyang wrote:
>
> New drawbacks:
>
> 1. In the original mail, "in use" is after O/A and can be used.
> In RFC3261,
> If the session description has changed, the UAS
> MUST adjust the session parameters accordingly, possibly *after asking
> the user for confirmation*.
> "*asking the user for confirmation*" can be user's preference(as Local
> Policy).
>
> Then, the "in use" can be depend on "Local Policy".
>
> 2. As your original example:
> some with precondition not OK, some without precondition or precondition
> has been OK.
> The modification part of the later(without precondition or precondition
> has been OK) can need for "*asking the user for confirmation*".
>
> But the Re-INVITE failed for precondition not satisfied, and the user
> will not be alerted or hinted. But the modification would go on beyond
> user's idea.
>
> Another "Let alone" drawback, it is more serious than "rejected but
> still let alone".
> For "rejected but still let alone", user at least know what happened.
>
> 3. Partially comit and partially rollback of O/A which is considered atomic.
> The impact is unknown now.
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:38:14 +0200
> > From: Gonzalo.Camarillo@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To: gao.yang2@xxxxxxxxxx
> > CC: sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx; sipping@xxxxxxxx;
> christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Sipping] 答复: Re: 答复: Re: 答复: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re:
> ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: Closing the offer/answer
> rollback issue
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > at this point, the discussions are going in circles and are not
> > productive any longer. No new ideas are being introduced.
> >
> > I think I now understand your main points (media synchronization and
> > session continuity) so that I can put together a more formal description
> > of the straw-man proposal in my original email that meets all the
> > requirements brought up here.
> >
> > The proposal will be what the WG had agreed on before with slight
> > modifications (e.g., a clarification of the "in use" concept) in order
> > to better address your concerns.
> >
> > Thanks for your input,
> >
> > Gonzalo
> >
> > gao.yang2@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes. I think it is can, not MUST.
> > >
> > > And with precondition, the user can be hinted the new modification
> just
> > > after Offer/Answer pairs.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>*
> > >
> > > 2009-02-27 18:22
> > >
> > >
> > > 收件人
> > > wang.libo@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > 抄送
> > > christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx, gao.yang2@xxxxxxxxxx,
> sipping@xxxxxxxx,
> > > sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx, Eric.wangxr@xxxxxxxxx
> > > 主题
> > > Re: 答复: Re: 答复: Re: ??: Re: [Sipping] ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??:
> > > Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: Closing the offer/answer rollback issue
> > >
> > >
> > >
> & gt; >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > UEB would have rejected the video stream in the 183 response.
> > >
> > > Gonzalo
> > >
> > > wang.libo@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > >
> > > > HI,
> > > >
> > > > I think the video will be established.The figure below shows the
> case.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. REINVITE(audio，vedio)
> > > > ----------------------------->
> > > > 2. 183
> > > > <-----------------------------
> > > > 3. PRACK/200
> > > > <------------------------------>
> > > > 4. UPDATE(audio，vedio)
> > > > ----------------------------->
> > > > 5. 200(audio，vedio)
> > > > <-----------------------------
> > > >
> > > > 6. 4XX
> > > > <-----------------------------
> > > >
> > > > After step 5, UEs' precondition are met ,and the video stream is
> > > > established too.
> > > > But UE-B send 4xx to reject 4XX (step 6).
> > > >
> > > > Regards.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>*
> > > >
> > > > 2009-02-27 17:30
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 收件人
> > > > wang.libo@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > 抄送
> > > > christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx,
> > > gao.yang2@xxxxxxxxxx, sipping@xxxxxxxx,
> > > > sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx
> > > > 主题
> > > > Re: 答复: Re: ??: Re: [Sipping] ??: Re: ??: Re: ??:
> > > Re: ??: Re: ??:
> > > > Re: ??: Re: Closing the offer/answer rollback issue
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ; >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > If UE-A wants to communicate with UE-B by video, but UE-B only
> > > want to
> > > > > communicate by audio.
> > > >
> > > > then UE-B rejects the video stream and the video stream is never
> > > > established.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Gonzalo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 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 an d 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 使用新一代 Windows Live Messenger 轻松交流和共享！ 立刻下载！
> <http://im.live.cn/messenger.aspx>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------------------------------------------------- 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
