Hi, >Very concise documents! I think so, too :) comment inline. Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >Hi, > >I have put together the following draft. It contains a proposal for the >rollback issue that has been discussed on the list: > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-camarillo-sipping-reinvite-00.txt > >3. Clarifications on the Target Refresh Procedure > target again. In this case, a 200 (OK) response to the re-INVITE > would accept the latest target refresh within the re-INVITE. That > is, the target refresh performed by the UPDATE request. IMO, it is not correct that "a 200 (OK) response to the re-INVITE would accept the latest target refresh". Because 200 response is returned by not Contact but Via header, 200 is unrelated to the Contact of the UPDATE request. >5. UAC Behavior > so that the session can continue. This new offer/answer exchange > should contain the minimum set of changes needed to continue the > session in order to minimize the chances of the UAS rejecting it as > well. "the minimum set" I think is, as if all o/a exchange had been done by UPDATE, UAC should revert to the pre-INVITE state. >I have also written another short draft on an issue related to >preconditions that was also discussed on the list in one of the >rollback-related threads: > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-camarillo-sipping-precons-00.txt > level, the UAS sends an UPDATE request (10) removing the > preconditions from the audio stream. This indicates that the audio > stream is now in use. RFC3312 restrick downgrading the desired strength. IMO "removing the precondition" is equal to downgrading the desired strength, isn't it? >Comments are welcome. > >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
