Hi, > I just read your two drafts,and at this moment I think it is a solution, > but also, it's a complex one. everything that has been discussed on the list is much more complex. Note that my proposal does not involve normative changes to the specs. It clarifies when and when not to use the existing tools we have. > I think it should be discussed more about this solution. > If re-INVITE can't be rejected, then re-INVITEs are no better than > UPDATEs,I think. sure, you can use UPDATEs instead of re-INVITEs for a lot of things. Nobody keeps you from using UPDATEs. The draft is clarifying how to use re-INVITEs if you decide to use them. There are a few reasons why some implementations out there use re-INVITEs instead of UPDATEs in some cases. > If UAC raises an unrejectable request,it should contain minimum set > of changes.If it is rejected just because it contains unacceptable changes > by UAS, it deserves the rejection. You missed the whole point of that discussion. Please, re-read that section. > As we can make restrictions not to reject re-INVITE,why not restrict > UPDATEs in re-INVITEs. > Also, unlimited UPDATEs increase the collision.Such as the step (6) and > step (8) in figure 4 of your draft. again, there are reasons why some implementations use UPDATEs within a re-INVITE. Preconditions is the typical example. There are many implementations that use them. Always keep in mind backwards compatibility. Designing mechanisms without keeping this in mind is not a very productive exercise in this context. Thanks, 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
