> At this point, we are arguing about the *intent* of the text - it is > clearly confusing to some people. > > And AFAIK we (me, Gao, Shinji, and Christer) are all in agreement that > the intent of the existing text is that: > > - *if* the UAC receives SDP in an unreliable response before > receiving it in a reliable response, it MUST begin to use it > in the same way that it would use it if that SDP had been > received in a reliable response, > > - but that it is not officially "the answer", and so it is not > yet permissible to initiate another o/a exchange until a reliable > response containing "the answer" is received. > > - but when "the answer" is received, it MUST be ignored > (rather than "used") if an earlier SDP has already been > received and so "treated as the answer". > > Are *we* all in agreement that this is the one and only *intended* > meaning of the text? Yes. _______________________________________________ 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
