Hi, >>I think the one of the main issues at the moment is what happens after >>preconditions have been met on both sides: >> >>1) Is the change now commited/in-use, and a re-INVITE failure would not >>change that? <----- "in-use" alternative >>OR >>2) Would a re-INVITE failure cause a fallback (this is what is meant by >>"late commitment")? <---- "late commitment" alternative > >Ahh. Well if that's the issue, I vote for doing exactly >whatever would happen if a normal (non-pre-conditional) SDP >offer/answer is exchanged and the re-INVITE fails. I have >absolutely no idea what that would be, but it should be the >same. :) (I mean I know what 3261 says, that it reverts all >the way back, but I have no idea if that's actually what most >people do) Sure, the issue is valid also for non pre-condition use-cases. For example. The UAC sends an SDP offer in a re-INVITE, and receives an SDP answer in a reliable 18x. But, then what happens when the re-INVITE fails? 1) Is the change now commited/in-use, and a re-INVITE failure would not change that? <----- "in-use" alternative OR 2) Would a re-INVITE failure cause a fallback (this is what is meant by "late commitment")? <---- "late commitment" alternative >If I had my druthers the SDP change would stick (not revert), >because I personally think it's cleaner, but I can see an >argument for both ways. Yes. Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ 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
