Gonzalo, >> comment inline. >> >>>> If re-INVITE rejected, I think, it doesn't influence the remote >>>> target. >>> see the reference to RFC 3261 in the draft regarding atomicity. >> >> A B >> INVITE/200/ACK <-----------------> >> Contact: A1 >> reINVITE/18x <-----------------> >> Contact: A2 >> UPDATE/200 <-----------------> >> Contact: A3 >> 4xx/ACK <-----------------> >> >> You say that A's Contact(local target) is rolled back to A1. >> Is this right? > >yes. I thought most had agreed that there will be a rollback to the "last committed state". Even if UPDATE had no offer, was A's Contact rolled back to A1 ? >> Therefore, I think that "removing the precondition" is not allowed. >> Is this wrong? > >the precondition phase is over. The preconditions were already met. All >you are doing is indicating that the stream is in use in the most >backwards compatible way we have. But your interpretation is not written explicitly. I think this is an another issue and cause new interoperability problems. Do both Session Refresh Request and hold-SDP have no precondition attributes ? Regards, Shinji _______________________________________________ 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
