Re: PRACK: Change MUST requirement to include SDP offer in first reliable provisional response

I think I also agree. There are a lot of things that in hindsight we 
probably would have done differently. But that is water over the dam. We 
are where we are.

	Paul

Rockson Li (zhengyli) wrote:
> I totally agree with Hadriel's insight here.
> 
> It should have been avoided to put too many jobs into PRACK,
> 
> I miss KISS(Keep It Simple and Stupid) principle
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rockson
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On 
> Behalf Of *Hadriel Kaplan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:50 PM
> *To:* Christer Holmberg; [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [Sipping] PRACK: Change MUST requirement to include SDP 
> offer in first reliable provisional response
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> In hindsight I’m thinking we probably also shouldn’t have made the SDP 
> answer (or another offer) required or even possible in the PRACK 
> either.  I think it should have been for one and only one purpose: to 
> acknowledge receipt of the provisional response. 
> 
>  
> 
> -hadriel
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
> This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
> Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
> Use [email protected] for new developments of core SIP
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments of core SIP