Re: Is SDP in an unreliable response "the answer" ???

Hi Christer, Brett,

This bullet might mean what you say.

Overall I can understand it. But reading the specs carefully,
I'm confused a little.

IMO The first statement in this bullet is not necessary, it is
the cause of trouble more than the explanation.

Lets get the discussion back to the 3rd bullet, I think it is
necessary, but "should not" is better than "MUST NOT".

Regards,
Shinji

Christer Holmberg <[email protected]>
Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:55:26 +0200
>The text talks about generating additional offers, but not
>about including a copy of previously sent ones.

Brett Tate <[email protected]>
Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:54:08 -0700
>Very little since from UAC perspective, the SDP MUST be ignored.
>Thus if UAS places a modified SDP within a subsequent response,
>it isn't an offer SDP or an updated answer SDP.

>> I don't intend to be strongly particular about the last "MUST NOT".
>> 
>> But RFC3261 say,
>>       o  Once the UAS has sent or received an answer to the initial
>>          offer, it MUST NOT generate subsequent offers in any responses
>>          to the initial INVITE.  This means that a UAS based on this
>>          specification alone can never generate subsequent offers until
>>          completion of the initial transaction.
>> 
>> What do the above statements forbid?
_______________________________________________
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