Hi Gao, gao.yang2@xxxxxxxxxx Tue, 11 May 2010 11:09:34 +0800 >Hi, > >Discussion: > >The 488 response is another proposed solution, UAS may respond with a >488 response and then UAC should send again a PRACK request without >an offer. > > NOTE: In [RFC3262], the following restriction is defined with > regard to responding to a PRACK request. > > "If the PRACK does match an unacknowledged reliable provisional > response, it MUST be responded to with a 2xx response." > > This description is not completely correct. There are cases where > it is unacceptable to send a 2xx response. For example, 401 > response can not be avoided. > >Allowing 488 for rejecting of PRACK's Offer has a long discussion. I tried to read again the mail regarding the discussion in last January. IMO, Paul, Christer and I agree with this NOTE. And in previous discussions it seems to be agreed. Therefore, I think this is not a normative change but a BCP text. >I'd like to rearrange my points: > >1. I once proposed a solution for PRACK's authentication as: doing >challenge in 1xx of 100-rel(such as 183) while not in PRACK, then PRACK >would not be rejected by 401. So, I guess RFC3262's text *could keep >right*(just my feeling). In fact, this issue(allowing 4xx of PRACK) is >more broad sense than the issue of rejecting PRACK's Offer. May we delay >this complex issue and just let this draft go on by avoiding the >discussion of RFC3262's correctness. So, I prefer the NOTE part shoule be >cut down. > >2. I'd like to emphasize that I am not the person to *put grit in the >machine* for the issue of allowing 4xx of PRACK. I just not prefer it. And >I am OK with the proposal of 488 of PRACK's Offer in this INFORMATIVE >text. And I'd like to point out that, as currently, most of the UAC can >not handle 4xx of PRACK, it may just terminate the dialog by the 4xx. So, >I'd prefer the text as: >The 488 response is another proposed solution, UAS may respond with a 488 >response and then UAC may send again a PRACK request without an offer or >just terminate the dialog.(we should not make the UAC re-send PRACK as >*SHOULD*, as it may be normative.). I agree "or just may terminate the dialog". But I think "send again a PRACK" is more effective than "terminate the dialog". Therefore, we should make the UAC re-send PRACK as *should*. >Comments: > >I am OK with almost all of the text. And I am glad to find more detailed >use cases of glare cases. Thank you so much. Regards, Shinji >Thanks, > >Gao _______________________________________________ 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
