Hi,
I just mean:
All the usage can be used in PRACK, we call it Set.
By current RFC3262, can be used in PRACK, we call it SubSet1.
SubSet1 is very small. And if we do usage beyond SubSet1, the termination
of session is acceptable (for me).
So, I recommend that the UAS return a 200 when it has not been able to
process the PRACK due to an error, then terminate the session.
About authorization, I think, we can do authorization in PRACK(It is a
choice, not mandatory thing.), but we should do not do it in PRACK by
current RFC3262.
If people want to enrich SubSet1, I think it is needed to modify RFC3262
and find a way to solve the problem.
Thanks
Gao
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> 写于 2009-04-08 20:04:27:
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Please see the previous mail:
> >
> > as UAS MUST return 2xx, then we can *deduce* that it is UAC's
obligation
> > to make sure UAS will accept the PRACK.
>
> I think that in general we can presume that the UAC doesn't *expect*
> that its PRACK will be rejected. Yet the PRACK can fail for no fault on
> the part of the UAC, and no fault on the part of the UAS either.
>
> I've already given the example of authorization failure.
>
> Its simply a faulty spec that presumes it can ignore the possibility of
> errors. All we are trying to do is *fix* that so that things will
> continue to function in a predictable way in the face of an error.
>
> Would you honestly recommend that the UAS return a 200 when it has not
> been able to process the PRACK due to an error?
>
> Thanks
> Paul
>
> > *"Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]>*
> >
> > 2009-04-08 13:39
> >
> >
> > 收件人
> > <[email protected]>, "Paul Kyzivat" <[email protected]>
> > 抄送
> > <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, "Rockson Li
(zhengyli)"
> > <[email protected]>
> > 主题
> > RE: Re: 答复: Re: 答复: Re: [Sipping] PRACK: Change MUST
requirement to
> > include SDP offer in first reliable provisional response
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What PRACK usages are we adding???
> >
> > We are talking about being allowed to send a non-200 response to a
> > PRACK, and how to deal with it.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Christer
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *
> > Sent:* 8. huhtikuuta 2009 8:23*
> > To:* Paul Kyzivat*
> > Cc:* Christer Holmberg; [email protected]; [email protected];
> > Rockson Li (zhengyli)*
> > Subject:* 答复: Re: 答复: Re: 答复: Re: [Sipping] PRACK: Change MUST
> > requirement to include SDP offer in first reliable provisional
response
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > inline:)
> >
> >
> > Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> 写于 2009-04-08 12:37:40:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I do not think it is naivety of RFC3262.
> > > >
> > > > In theory, there are cases that UAS(PRACK's UAS) should return
> > non-2xx,
> > > > as there is no explicit regulation of what can be in PRACK or
not.
> > > >
> > > > But as UAS MUST return 2xx, then we can *deduce* that it is UAC's
> > > > obligation to make sure UAS will accept the PRACK. If UAS do not
obey
> > > > this, UAC can terminate the session. And if UAS want to issue a
> > > > modification of session which may be rejected by UAC, it can use
> > UPDATE
> > > > later.
> > >
> > > You have an opinion of what the UAS needs to do to resolve the
> > > inadequacies of 3262, and I have a different opinion about that.
That is
> > > why we are discussing it. And I expect there are yet other
opinions.
> > > That is why we are discussing it.
> > >
> > > IMO there are cases where a non-2xx response is called for, and
> > > terminating the session is an unreasonable remedy. The one I have
given
> > > is where an Authorization header is included but the nonce has
expired.
> > > There is no other way for the UAC to learn that it needs a new
nonce,
> > > and having the session fail in that case is unreasonable. I'm sure
there
> > > are other cases as well.
> > >
> >
> > [Gao] If we adding more usage to PARCK, I'm sure there are other cases
> > as well too.
> > My point is that we can do the thing with another UPDATE, while not
the
> > PRACK.
> >
> > I think this is not a dialectic problem, it is just choice. So, I
would
> > not stick to my personal ponit of view if people want to making PRACK
> > with more usage.
> >
> >
> > > > Considering UAC, it can judge from the 4xx to terminate the
> > session(such
> > > > as 481), or send a new PRACK.
> > >
> > > If you acknowledge that the UAS may have need to send a non-2xx
> > > response, and the UAC may then want to retransmit the PRACK, then
it
> > > seems you are agreeing with me.
> > >
> > > > And the process mentioned above just obeys RFC3262, and it
practical
> > > > enough for the usage.
> > > > I can accept the UAC *judging from the 4xx to terminate the
> > session(such
> > > > as 481), or send a new PRACK. But I think considering the UAS
> > rejecting
> > > > the PRACK and retransmiting 18x(100rel) would make the problem
too
> > > > complex.
> > >
> > > What is so hard?
> >
> > [Gao] No hard, just complex :)
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Gao
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]>*
> > > >
> > > > 2009-04-07 20:59
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 收件人
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > 抄送
> > > > Christer Holmberg <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected],
> > > > [email protected], "Rockson Li (zhengyli)"
<[email protected]>
> > > > 主题
> > > > Re: 答复: Re: [Sipping] PRACK: Change MUST requirement to
> > include SDP
> > > > offer in first reliable provisional response
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We could write in an RFC that lead must be turned into gold, but
> > when it
> > > > came time to implement that it would be discovered that it wasn't
> > > > feasible to always follow the RFC.
> > > >
> > > > The quotes below reflect a similar degree of naivety in 3262, at
least
> > > > regarding the responses to PRACK. Plenty of examples have been
given of
> > > > cases where it is inappropriate to return a 200 response.
> > > >
> > > > The statement that retransmissions shall cease when the matching
PRACK
> > > > is received is, IMO, predicated on the assumption that a 200 will
> > always
> > > > be returned. Once you reverse that assumption, then you must also
> > > > reconsider this statement.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > More points of view to this question:
> > > > >
> > > > > By RFC3262:
> > > > > 1. "Retransmissions of the reliable provisional response cease
> > when a
> > > > > matching PRACK is received by the UA core."
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. "If the PRACK does match an unacknowledged reliable
provisional
> > > > > response, it MUST be responded to
> > > > > with a 2xx response."
> > > > >
> > > > > So, when UAs receive a matching PRACK, it will stop
re-transmit the
> > > > > reliable provisional response(18x). And the response
> > > > > to PRACK MUST be 2xx.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is simple and clear. And when UAs receive non-2xx response
to
> > PRACK,
> > > > > it is clear that the other side do not receive the
> > > > > PRACK. It can send a new PRACK(CSeq++, the same RAck).
> > > > >
> > > > > And now, we can use PRACK to send "precondition notification"
> > and "codec
> > > > > refine". When we need to issue session modification like
adding
> > codec,
> > > > > adding/removing media streams, we MUST using Re-INVITE/UPDATE.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we should not re-write RFC3262 to allow the UA to
reject
> > the
> > > > PRACK.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]>*
> > > > > 发件人: [email protected]
> > > > >
> > > > > 2009-04-06 20:16
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 收件人
> > > > > "Rockson Li (zhengyli)" <[email protected]>
> > > > > 抄送
> > > > > [email protected], Christer Holmberg
> > > > <[email protected]>
> > > > > 主题
> > > > > Re: [Sipping] 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in
this
> > > > mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail
> > > > communication is confidential. Recipients named above are
obligated to
> > > > maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents
of
> > this
> > > > communication to others.
> > > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and
> > > > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
> > they are
> > > > addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the
> > > > originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message
are
> > those
> > > > of the individual sender.
> > > > > This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE
Anti-Spam
> > > > system.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in
this
> > > mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail
> > > communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated
> > > to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents
> > > of this communication to others.
> > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> > > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they
> > > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
> > > notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this
> > > message are those of the individual sender.
> > > > This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE
Anti-Spam
> > system.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this
mail
> > is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail
communication
> > is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain
> > secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this
> > communication to others.
> > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are
> > addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
> > originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are
those
> > of the individual sender.
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam
system.
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this
> mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail
> communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated
> to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents
> of this communication to others.
> > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
> notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this
> message are those of the individual sender.
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam
system.
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
_______________________________________________
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
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.