Re: PRACK: Change MUST requirement to include SDP offer in first reliable provisional response

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Title: PRACK: Change MUST requirement to include SDP offer in first reliable provisional response

 

Unfortunately we know of implementations that expect SDP in the first reliable provisional response.  I don’t know how we can relax the normative language for that at this point, short of defining a new PRACK-ish thing, and I don’t see how that could work either. 

In hindsight I’m thinking we probably also shouldn’t have made the SDP answer (or another offer) required or even possible in the PRACK either.  I think it should have been for one and only one purpose: to acknowledge receipt of the provisional response. 

 

-hadriel

 


From: sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 12:09 PM
To: sipping@xxxxxxxx
Subject: PRACK: Change MUST requirement to include SDP offer in first reliable provisional response

 

 

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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Announce]     [IETF Discussion]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Big List of Linux Books]

  Powered by Linux