When later UPDATE/200OK commit the "Target Refresh", it is not associated with Re-INVITE.
So, it MUST NOT rollback.
In RFC3261 (about this point), there is only pending-committed semantics, no committed-rollback semantics.
While the pending state of "Target Refresh" is replace by a new modification of "Target Refresh".
The old one is discarded. Why the new one rollback?
| Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
发件人: sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx 2009-03-04 18:42 |
|
Hi,
> If re-INVITE rejected, I think, it doesn't influence the remote
> target.
see the reference to RFC 3261 in the draft regarding atomicity.
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
-------------------------------------------------------- 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
