Re: New version (-04) of draft-ietf-sip-199

"Elwell, John" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.sip
Message-ID <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0016B395D@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net>
Christer,

> >>"When a forking proxy receives a non-2xx final response which
> >>terminates one or more (if forking has occured downstream a final
> >>response received by the forking proxy MAY terminate multiple early
> >>dialogs), and the proxy does not intend to forward the 
> >>final response immedialetly (due to the rules for a forking proxy),
> and 
> >>the UAC has indicated support of the 199 response code, the proxy 
> >>SHOULD generate and send a 199 response upstream for the 
> early dialog
> on which the
> >>non-2xx final response was received, unless the proxy has 
> >>previously recieved and forwarded a 199 response for the dialog."
> >
> >Wow! We really must shorten this sentence. In particular I 
> >don't like including a second normative sentence in 
> >parentheses within the main sentence.
> 
> I can try to think of more simple wording. 
> 
> And, text suggestions are of course always welcome :)
> 
How about:
"When a forking proxy receives a non-2xx final response that terminates
one or more early dialogs, if the proxy does not intend to forward the
final response immediately (in accordance with rules for a forking
proxy) and the UAC has indicated support for the 199 response code, the
proxy SHOULD generate and send a 199 response upstream for each early
dialog terminated on the downstream side by the non-2xx final response,
except for any early dialog for which the proxy has previously received
and forwarded a 199 response. Note that if forking has also occurred
downstream of the forking proxy, a final response received by the
forking proxy can terminate multiple early dialogs."

I have removed the normative statement that was in parentheses and
created a separate sentence at the end. However, I believe it does not
need to be normative - it is just a statement of something that arises
because of the normative provisions of RFC 3261.

I believe the proxy should send a 199 response on EACH affected early
dialog (unless 199 already sent). This too is reflected in my proposed
rewording.

I hope this helps.

John
_______________________________________________
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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.