I support view 1.
Regards,
Christer
From: sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of gao.yang2@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 10. maaliskuuta 2009 8:54
To: Eric.wang
Cc: 'SIP'; 'SIPPING'
Subject: 答复: [Sip] "UPDATE during Re-INVITE" discussion
Yes. If we accept view 1, there would be some backward compatible problem. And this is a change to RFC3311.
I am waiting for more comments from people want to keep RFC3311 from re-write.
Gao
"Eric.wang" <eric.wangxr@xxxxxxxxx> 写于 2009-03-09 20:05:51:
> Hi,
>
> I support view 2,not all update can be considered as sub-transaction
> of re-INVITE.
> According to current RFCs, it’s NOT proper to consider all UPDATEs
> as re-INVITE’s sub-transaction
> Eg:
> UPDATE nested in re-INVITE for target refresh can’t be considered
> as sub-transaction.
> There are two thought about "UPDATE during Re-INVITE". Which one is
> better or suits for current RFCs
>
> There are two thought about "UPDATE during Re-INVITE".
>
> 1. All UPDATEs during Re-INVITE are Re-INVITE's sub-transaction
> RFC3312(Precondition) is a case. As there is such case, we can
> making all UPDATEs during Re-INVITE as Re-INVITE's sub-transaction.
>
> 2. Not all UPDATE(during Re-INVITE) can be considered as sub-
> transaction of Re-INVITE
> There is really need nested-modification, such as precondition and
> more in the future. But the cascade of nested transaction should be
> defined in application-level, not signal-level. So, it is better to
> make Re-INVITE and UPDATE separatly expect for definition such as
> precondition. And this obeys current definition of RFC3311.
>
> In RFC3311, when the UPDATE is accepted by the other
> side(UPDATE/200OK), the change of states is committed and effort at
> once. And making all UPDATEs during Re-INVITE as Re-INVITE's sub-
> transaction can be violation of RFC3311. So, we shold not treat all
> UPDATEs during Re-INVITE as Re-INVITE's sub-transaction.
>
> While UPDATE/200OK just refresh "precondition state table" in
> RFC3312("precondition state table" is modified at once, so this
> obeys RFC3312), having no impat on the commitment of modification
> triggered by Re-INVITE, these UPDATE/200OK can be treated as sub-
> transaction of Re-INVITE.
> Other UPDATE/200OK can not be treated as sub-transaction of Re-INVITE.
>
> Comments/feeling are welcome!-------------------------------------------------------- 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
