|
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 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: 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,
|
_______________________________________________ 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
