Hi, I guess we could even say that the UAS SHOULD generate SDP offer in the first reliable response, unless it for whatever reason is not able to do so. Regards, Christer > -----Original Message----- > From: Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh) [mailto:sanjsinh@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 31. maaliskuuta 2009 9:19 > To: Hisham Khartabil; Christer Holmberg > Cc: sipping@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: PRACK: Change MUST requirement to > include SDP offerin first reliable provisional response > > > Inline .. > >-----Original Message----- > >From: sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx > >[mailto:sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hisham Khartabil > >Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 11:30 AM > >To: Christer Holmberg > >Cc: sipping@xxxxxxxx > >Subject: Re: PRACK: Change MUST requirement to include SDP > >offerin first reliable provisional response > > > >" > > > >RFC3262 > > > >"If the UAC receives a reliable provisional response with an offer > > (this would occur if the UAC sent an INVITE without an offer, in > > which case the first reliable provisional response will > contain the > > offer), it MUST generate an answer in the PRACK." > > > >Can you point to the text that says SDP offer does not need > to occur in > >the 1st reliable response? > > Yeah the rule says that SDP offer is MUST in reliable > provisional response and Christer's email is about relaxing that rule. > > Sanjay > > > > >Hisham > > > >2009/3/31 Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> One of the PRACK related issues presented in SFO is whether > >we should > >> change the requirement to include SDP offer in the first reliable > >> provisional response, if the INVITE does not contain SDP. > >> > >> Two use-cases, which the current requirement affect, were > presented: > >> 1. H.323/SIP interworking, where an empty INVITE may have been > >> received and an SDP offer is not available when the first > >reliable 18x > >> is to be sent (please see meeting slides for details). > >> > >> 2. Call fowarding, when a 181 provisional is sent. The 181 > >may be sent > >> by an intermediate, and if the INVITE did not contain SDP > a reliable > >> 181 would be required to contain an SDP offer. > >> > >> It was indicated that there may be backward compability > issues. That > >> of course depends on the number of deployments where > INVITE without > >> SDP is sent AND a reliable 18x without SDP offer would cause > >an error. > >> > >> Some people indicated concern, so I would like to ask what > >people think? > >> Would changing the rules cause problems in existing deploymentnts? > >> > >> Regards, > >> Christer > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > >> > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > > > _______________________________________________ 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
