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 have no doubt that the problem is comlex,but I think we should find as easy
a solution as possible to solve this problem.
For most equipment such as UAs and service servers,some updates must be done in
order to solve this problem. I think little updates would be better,although we
may have to changes some specs.Specs are instructions, i think, of course, we
should think carefully if we have to do so.
>
> > 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.
>
I catch most of that discussion, but I can't receive all letters from gao.yang.
> > 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.
>
Yes, preconditions surely can be implemented in re-INVITE,and both the UAs can foresee
these UPDATEs, and there is no puzzle if there are only precondition UPDATEs.
> Always keep in mind backwards compatibility. Designing mechanisms
> without keeping this in mind is not a very productive exercise in this
> context.
I agree, if new solution has no backwards compatibility,it's not a solution.
Wishes,
Eri.wang
-------------------------------------------------------- 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
