Hi, >Certainly there is no problem with continuing to discuss that. >But I didn't see any reason to mention it in this draft any longer. Wouldn't it be good to still describe the problem, but maybe indicate that the solution is outside the scope of the document? Regards, Christer Christer Holmberg wrote: > 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
