Hi, > By current normative definition, UAS of PRACK MUST send 2xx when recv 1xx(100rel). > > RFC3262: > If the PRACK does match an > unacknowledged reliable provisional response, it MUST be responded to > with a 2xx response. And, that text is the background for the whole issue. > So, UAC of PRACK should make sure UAS of PRACK will accept the offer in PRACK. Please tell me how the UAC does that... I think we in previous discussions have concluded that it is not possible to specify such thing. Even if the offer is very "simple" (doesn't change much since the previous offer etc), the UAS may have to reject it simply because of resource issues. > If UAC of PRACK is not careful enough, UAS still MUST send Answer in 2xx of PRACK(RFC3262 defines:If the UAS receives a PRACK with an offer, it MUST place the answer in the 2xx to the PRACK.). I know what the text says. > UAS can reject the Offer by setting streams' ports as zero. If it is not enough, UAS can send another Offer in UPDTAE. Port zero indicates that the streams have been removed, which in most cases is probably not the case. > I think the process is clear and effective for all cases. Whatever the solution is, we have a long time ago decided that we are going to write some clarification text about it. But, in any case, it's probably a good idea to start by going back and checking previous discussions. Regards, Christer Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 发件人: sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx 2010-01-19 03:12 收件人 Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@xxxxxxxxx>, "sipping-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sipping-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 抄送 sipping <sipping@xxxxxxxx> 主题 Re: [Sipping] New version posted: draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-11.txt Hi, The rejecting PRACK offer is still "ongoing", but unfortuantely I have not had time to do much onit lately - mostly due to INFO. Regards, Christer ________________________________________ From: sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx [sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat [pkyzivat@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 7:48 PM To: sipping-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: sipping Subject: [Sipping] New version posted: draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-11.txt I just posted a new version of the offeranswer draft. This version is intended to resolve all outstanding issues. Here is a summary of substantial changes made: - the open issues that were previously in section 6 were removed. The doc has been updated as needed to be consistent with conclusions about how to deal with those issues. Specifically: - Rejecting PRACK offer has simply been dropped. There has been no ongoing interest in no normative work to support doing that. - Commit/Rollback of Offer/Answer on Unsuccessful re-INVITE Transaction has been resolved by reference to draft-camarillo-sipcore-reinvite-01. New text referencing that has been added at multiple places in the document. - Loosening requirement for Offer in a Reliable Response: Again there has been no indication of intent to do anything in this space, so the topic has simply been dropped. - Requesting Hold while already on Hold: This was already addressed in the main body of the document. The issue was whether this was appropriate, since it rests on the interpretation of certain text in 3261 being non-normative. That assumption has been restated in the main body. I'm unaware of any argument to that in over two years. - The recommendations for addition of new o/a usage in sip (prior section 7) has also been dropped. While these may have been helpful during discussion of the draft, they aren't helpful after it is finalized. - I rearranged the order of authors since Takuya has been unavailable to work on it for some time. However I have retained him as an author because the preponderance of the text is still his. In addition there hare assorted miscellaneous minor cleanups. Thanks, Paul Internet-Draft@xxxxxxxx wrote: > New version (-11) has been submitted for draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-11.txt. > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-11.txt > Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed > > Diff from previous version: > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-11 > > IETF Secretariat. > _______________________________________________ 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 -------------------------------------------------------- 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
