Yes. There's another description in RFC3262 has the same meaning:
The UAS MAY send a final response to the initial request before
having received PRACKs for all unacknowledged reliable provisional
responses, unless the final response is 2xx and any of the
unacknowledged reliable provisional responses contained a session
description. In that case, it MUST NOT send a final response until
those provisional responses are acknowledged.
===================================
Zip : 210012
Tel : 87211
Tel2 :(+86)-025-52877211
e_mail : gao.yang2@xxxxxxxxxx
===================================
sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx 写于 2010-04-21 03:13:39:
>
>
> On 4/20/2010 7:04 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> >
> >
> > DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> >> Do remember that there are certain cases where the UAC will not ignore
> >> it. These are the cases where the message containing original answer
> >> has not yet arrived or been lost, and the protocol has not yet
> >> recovered from that.
> >
> > Hmm. Can you say more?
> >
> > Are you thinking of a case where the answer has been sent in a reliable
> > provisional, but the PRACK has not yet been received? And then that
> > *some* SDP is included in a subsequent unreliable provisional, or 2xx?
> >
> > That is an interesting case. The one that would be least wierd is:
> >
> > UAC UAS
> > | INVITE (SDP1) |
> > |----------------->|
> > | 1xx REL (SDP2) |
> > | X--------------|
> > | 2xx (no SDP) |
> > |<-----------------|
>
> This is not a valid case. It's explicitly ruled out by 3262:
>
> If the UAS had placed a session description in any reliable
> provisional response that is unacknowledged when the INVITE is
> accepted, the UAS MUST delay sending the 2xx until the provisional
> response is acknowledged. Otherwise, the reliability of the 1xx
> cannot be guaranteed, and reliability is needed for proper operation
> of the offer/answer exchange.
>
> Thanks,
> Anders
>
> >
> > I think that implies a different best practice:
> >
> > If the UAS has sent an answer in a reliable provisional, if it sends a
> > 2xx before receiving a prack of the answer, it should include the answer
> > in the 2xx as well.
> >
> > (If the UAS intends to initiate another o/a it MUST await the prack, so
> > if the 1xx is lost it will be retransmitted.)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > | |
> > |<-----------------|
> > | |
> > | |
> > |----------------->|
> > | |
> > |<-----------------|
> > | |
> > | |
> > |----------------->|
> > | |
> > |<-----------------|
> > | |
> > | |
> > |----------------->|
> > | |
> > |<-----------------|
> > | |
> > | |
> > |----------------->|
> > | |
> > |<-----------------|
> > | |
> >
> >> regards
> >>
> >> Keith
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On
> >>> Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 1:47 PM
> >>> To: OKUMURA Shinji; sipping@xxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: Re: [Sipping] Is SDP in an unreliable response "the answer" ???
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>>>> Before sending an answer,
> >>>>>> - An UAS MAY send unreliable provisional responses with a SDP.
> >>>>>> - And the SDP MUST be identical to an answer SDP.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> After sending an answer,
> >>>>>> - The UAS should not insert a SDP in any response.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is this OK?
> >>>>> That text still doesn't say what an SDP inserted after sending the
> >>>>> answer means, only that it should not be sent.
> >>>> The SDP means nothing. it is neither an offer nor an answer.
> >>> Exactly. In my opinion that is what is important - not whether the
> >>> UAS inserts SDP or not.
> >>>
> >>>>> I still don't see why we need to make a separation about SDP sent
> >>>>> before and after the answer, because in both cases the SDP must be
> >>>>> identical to the answer.
> >>>> 1. RFC3261 says that UAS MAY send it before the answer and
> >>>> doesn't say nothing after the answer.
> >>> That is one reason why we are writing the draft - to clarify things
> >>> which may not be clear in the specs.
> >>>
> >>>> 2. The SDP MUST be ignored by UAC. it is meaningless.
> >>> I agree, and that is what we must be clear about. Because, as we
> >>> know, some people want to send a NEW offer (or updated answer) in a
> >>> subsequent response, and that is not allowed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 3. if another o/a exchange is occured (using UPDATE or
> >>> PRACK), it is not even a confirmation.
> >>>> And, again, I know there are many implementations that send
> >>> a copy of
> >>>> the SDP after the SDP answer has been sent, so instead of
> >>> saying that
> >>>> it should not be done I think it is much more important to
> >>> say that, if
> >>>> it is done, it must be identical to the SDP answer. In other
> >>> words, to
> >>>> make it clear that the UAS can not send a NEW offer (or
> >>> updated answer)
> >>>> in a subsequent response after the SDP answer has been sent.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since UAC MUST ignored it, there is no problem on a interworking.
> >>>> Why must it be identical to the SDP answer?
> >>> Well, if you look at it that way, fine. But, then the important thing
> >>> is that the UAC must ignore it - not that the UAS should not send it.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Christer
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Christer
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hans Erik van Elburg <ietf.hanserik@xxxxxxxxx> Mon, 19 Apr 2010
> >>>>> 13:55:41 +0200
> >>>>>>> - An UAS MAY insert a SDP body that is identical to the
> >>>> SDP answer,
> >>>>>>> in an unreliable provisional response before the SDP
> >>> answer has
> >>>>>>> been sent.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - The UAS MUST NOT insert a SDP body that is not
> >>>> identical to the
> >>>>>>> SDP answer, in an unreliable provisional response
> >>> before the SDP
> >>>>>>> answer has been sent.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is terribly confusing. Very probabe that noone will
> >>>> get it right.
> >>>>>> Triple negation. And talking about sending and answer before the
> >>>>>> answer has been sent. ???
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - The UAS MUST NOT insert a SDP body in any response
> >>>> after the SDP
> >>>>>>> answer has been sent.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> This means that you can't send it again after you've send
> >>> it in an
> >>>>>> unreliable provisional response. Do you want tto say that?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> /Hans Erik van Elburg
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
