Re: Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07 - comment onsection 7

 
>Yep, unless there really is a new "MUST" to write in the 199 draft.

Not in my opinion.

Regards,

Christer



> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 5:54 AM
> > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Tan, Ya Ching (NSN - DE/Munich)
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [Sip] Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07 
> - comment 
> > onsection 7
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > >Is that a "MUST" or something that is not must like "RFC
> > 3261 specifies
> > when a final response is sent."
> > 
> > RFC 3261 does specify when a final response is sent. Would 
> you prefer 
> > something like:
> > 
> > "The 199 Early Dialog Terminated response code does not "replace" a 
> > final response. RFC 3261 specifies when a final response is sent."
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Christer
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> > > Behalf Of
> > > > Christer Holmberg
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:09 PM
> > > > To: Tan, Ya Ching (NSN - DE/Munich)
> > > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: Re: [Sip] Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07
> > > - comment
> > > > on section 7
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > -----
> > > > 
> > > > >2) Section 7 Backward compatibilility
> > > > >
> > > > >"The 199 Early Dialog Terminated response code does not
> > > "replace" a
> > > > >final response.  A final response is always sent, after one
> > > > or many 199
> > > > provisional responses have been sent."
> > > > >
> > > > >A final response is NOT always sent.  If the forking has
> > > > resulted in at
> > > > >least one 2xx being sent on the server transaction, no
> > > > 3xx/4xx/5xx/6xx
> > > > is allowed to be sent to the same
> > > > >server transaction after the 2xx.
> > > > >
> > > > >So these early dialogs which receive non-2xx final
> > response AFTER a
> > > > first 2xx final response will not get 199 but will
> > > > >only be considered terminated by the UAC 64*T1 seconds 
> after the
> > > > reception of the first 2xx response.  Even those early
> > > > >dialogs for which 199 responses have been sent 
> (because the final
> > > > responses were received before the first 2xx) will not
> > > > >receive a final response.
> > > > >
> > > > >RFC3261/13.2.2.4:
> > > > >
> > > > >"The UAC core considers the INVITE transaction completed
> > > > 64*T1 seconds
> > > > >after the reception of the first 2xx response.  At this
> > > > point all the
> > > > >early dialogs that have not transitioned to established
> > > dialogs are
> > > > >terminated.  Once the INVITE transaction is considered
> > > > completed by the
> > > > >UAC core, no more new 2xx responses are expected to arrive."
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > I propose the following text:
> > > > 
> > > > "The 199 Early Dialog Terminated response code does not
> > "replace" a
> > > > final response. A final response must always be sent when
> > > mandated by
> > > > the procedures in RFC3261."
> > > > 
> > > > I think that would clarify that we are not modifying 
> the core SIP 
> > > > rules on sending final responses.
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > 
> > > > Christer
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
_______________________________________________
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