Re: draft-ietf-sip-199-03: comments and questions

> I am still not sure I understand. Even if the 
> device answers quickly, the proxy can still 
> send 199 if it receives an error response. 

I agree.  However the section 6.1 paragraph 2 text indicates that the
proxy MUST send 199.  I'd prefer that it is downgraded to a SHOULD to
allow the 199 to be avoided when proxy redirecting to something expected
to answer quickly.

For instance consider, call-forward-no-answer to voice mail.  After
early dialog established and no-answer timer expires, the proxy sends
CANCEL and forks the INVITE to voice-mail server expected to answer
quickly.  The current text indicates that proxy MUST send 199 if 487
received before the INVITE 200.


> > > Two alternative solutions I can think of:
> > > 
> > > 1. We mandate a forking proxy which supports
> > > 199 to store the C/R-R information received 
> > > from the UAC, in order to insert it in any 
> > > 199 it generates for that session.
> > > 
> > > 2. We say that IF the forking proxy stores 
> > > the C/R-R information received from the UAC, 
> > > it shall insert it in any 199 it generates for 
> > > that session.
> >
> > Either alternative is OK with me.
> 
> I checked 3261, and if I remember correctly C/R-R 
> are not mandatory, so I would propose option 2.

I just noticed that you indicated "received from the UAC".  Did you mean
"received from the UAS"?  If not, would the proxy insert it's own
Contact?

Thanks,
Brett
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip