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

Hi,

OK. Then, let's go head.

And I am looking forward to the new version of O/A text now :)

Thanks,

Gao

===================================
 Zip    : 210012
 Tel    : 87211
 Tel2   :(+86)-025-52877211
 e_mail : [email protected]
===================================



Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> 
2010-04-21 21:39

收件人
[email protected]
抄送
OKUMURA Shinji <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" 
<[email protected]>, Christer Holmberg <[email protected]>
主题
Re: [Sipping] Is SDP in an unreliable response "the answer" ???






Gao - inline...

[email protected] wrote:
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Please see inlines.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gao
> 
> [email protected] 写于 2010-04-20 21:47:58:
> 
>  > Here is my attempt at summarizing the discussion conclusions:
>  >
>  > Normative things (stated or implied in existing RFCs):
>  >
>  > - If the UAC sent an offer in the INVITE, then after it receives SDP
>  > (the answer) in a reliable response to the INVITE, any SDP in 
subsequent
>  > responses to the INVITE MUST be ignored.
> 
> [Gao] Yes.
> 
>  >
>  > - Further, if SDP is received in an unreliable response to the invite
>  > prior to receiving SDP in a reliable response, then it MUST be 
treated
>  > as the answer for purposes of media processing, but not for purposes 
of
>  > determining when another offer may be sent or received.
> 
> [Gao] Mee too. But I am not sure the clarification of this part "but not 

> for purposes of
> determining when another offer may be sent or received".
> 
> IMO, permissibility of sending another Offer is signalling relating 
> issue. So, I guess it might be better to saying "finishing of the 
> ini-O/A transaction".

ok, I agree with that.

> Then, does the clarfication of receiving SDP in an unreliable 
> response(to the invite prior to receiving SDP in a reliable response) 
> not "finishing of the ini-O/A transaction" need normative correction or 
> not? I am not sure about this point.

IMO it does not. We have evidence of intent, even when lacking explicit
normative language, as well as proof that alternative interpretations do
not work. So I propose we call this settled, write it up as a
*clarification*, and declare victory.

                 Thanks,
                 Paul





--------------------------------------------------------
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