Hi, The offer in 1xx-rel and 2xx (for reINVITE) also have the same problem as PRACK offer. Even if UAC is not possible to accept the offer, UAC must send ACK/PRACK. Even though my suggestion violates RFCs, I think that UA may be allowed to send ACK/PRACK without SDP for these cases. Regards, Shinji >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
