Hi,
inlines.
Thanks,
Gao
Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 写于 2010-01-19 14:32:02:
>
> 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.
[Gao] That's why I paste it here.
>
>
> > 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.
[Gao] I just insist that we should not change the current normative definition if current rule is clear(under ratiocination) and effective.
If someone can do some BCP text about which can be in PRACK's Offer, I think it would be better.
>
> 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.
[Gao] Codec refine is the case in which UAC use the subset of codecs from previous O/A. If UAS would reject it, I think it should reject the Offer in previous O/A.
And changing of IP, port is also the case.
And we really have reserved the right for UAS rejecting the Offer by next UPDATE.
>
>
> > 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.
[Gao] By my self, I just do not prefer to handle non-2xx response of PRACK.
I think one BCP text as I mentioned previous is welcome.
>
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx
> org" <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.
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------- 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
