Re: draft-zourzouvillys-sip-via-cookie

On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 07:27 +0000, Michael Procter wrote:
> Adam Roach wrote:
> > Ah -- "statelessly" means something very different to you than it does
> > to me. I think you need to explicitly call out that you're proposing a
> > modification to the basic INVITE transaction model defined in RFC 3261
> > for this new response.
> >
> > This, combined with prohibiting provisional responses, would seem to
> > have the desired effect.
> 
> I don't think there is any proposed modification.  The response should
> be sent according to the rules of RFC 3261 section 8.2.7.  Amongst other
> things, this specifically prohibits provisional responses.
> 
> I think the draft should explicitly mention this section.

And more importantly, according to 8.2.7, the recipient of an INVITE
does *not* resend a 4xx response if it doesn't receive an ACK.  At first
read, this seems to violate the 3-way-handshake model of the INVITE
transaction, but it doesn't -- If the 4xx got lost, the UAC will send it
again, prompting the UAS to send an identical 4xx response.  If the ACK
gets lost, the UAS doesn't care.

Dale


_______________________________________________
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