[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since in the UAC point of view the behaviour is defined clearly, whats
the issue?
Does anybody see any use case for this additional answer, from an UAS
perspective?
From a practical perspective I think that there have been a lot of
implementors that implemented what they *thought* the spec said, but got
it wrong. Then others have done what they thought they had to do to
interoperate.
So there may be some use for this added answer for interoperation with
certain broken implementations. (But I speak hypothetically - I don't
have a specific implementation to point to.)
But for those just trying to follow the specs there is no use for this
added SDP. Nobody should be *using* it. If they are, they need to change.
Paul
Prince.
-----"Christer Holmberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -----
To: "Jonathan Rosenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Paul Kyzivat"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Christer Holmberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11/21/2007 12:33AM
cc: "Sanjay Sinha \(sanjsinh\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sip List
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Sip] SIPit21: SDP in a 200OK when using 100rel
Hi,
An implementation should keep offer/answer state and simply discard
the SDP in the 200 OK.
I don't think that is complicated :)
Regards,
Christer
________________________________
From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 20/11/2007 17:56
To: Paul Kyzivat
Cc: Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh); sip List
Subject: Re: [Sip] SIPit21: SDP in a 200OK when using 100rel
The intention was that, when reliable provisionals are used, the answer
would NOT appear in the 200 OK to the original INVITE. The paragraph in
RFC3261 is talking specifically about the case of an unreliable
provisional response.
The drawback of sending the answer in the reliable 18x and then
repeating it in the 200 OK, is what if they are not the same. It gets
really complicated if there are multiple O/A exchanges in UPDATE/PRACK
prior to the final 200 OK.
-Jonathan R.
Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>
>
> Robert Sparks wrote:
>> Yes, I did mean 200 INVITE.
>>
>> On Nov 19, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh) wrote:
>>
>>> It is not clear from the call flow if the 200 OK is for PRACK
or INVITE?
>>>
>>> I guess you meant 200 OK for Invite. If that is the case, I
think the
>>> RFC is clear that the answer sdp is optional in it and if it
does have
>>> an answer sdp, it MUST be idential to answer in 18x.
>>>
>>
>> Really? Point me to where you find this please.
>
> Mostly in 3261 sec 13.2.1. It says:
>
> o If the initial offer is in an INVITE, the answer MUST be
in a
> reliable non-failure message from UAS back to UAC which is
> correlated to that INVITE. For this specification, that is
> only the final 2xx response to that INVITE. That same exact
> answer MAY also be placed in any provisional responses sent
> prior to the answer. The UAC MUST treat the first session
> description it receives as the answer, and MUST ignore any
> session descriptions in subsequent responses to the initial
> INVITE.
>
> The first three sentences are the clearly normative part. When
combined
> with RFC 3262 definition of reliable provisionals, they say that the
> reliable provisional contains the answer.
>
> The last sentence doesn't really say the UAS may include sdp in
> subsequent responses to the invite transaction, but neither does
it say
> you can't. It does say the UAC should ignore them if present, which
> implies they can be present, but says nothing about what value
they must
> have if they are present.
>
> AFAIK there is nothing that says the answer may be repeated in
the 200.
> However it is seemingly done a lot, so one had better beware.
>
> Paul
>
>>> But I think the
>>> offer-answer draft has clarified it further that it should not
have any
>>> answer sdp. This is probably harsh in case of one offer-answer
exchange,
>>> but makes sense if there are multiple early dialog offer-answer
>>> exchanges in say Prack/200 OK or using UPDATE.
>
>
>
>>> Sanjay
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:14 PM
>>>> To: sip List
>>>> Subject: [Sip] SIPit21: SDP in a 200OK when using 100rel
>>>>
>>>> There was a lot of discussion and disagreement at SIPit21
>>>> about whether the following 200 OK is allowed (or should) have
>>>> SDP in it:
>>>>
>>>> INVITE (offer)
>>>> -------->
>>>> 18x (with 100rel) (answer)
>>>> <--------
>>>> PRACK
>>>> --------->
>>>> 200 OK (can this carry SDP?)
>>>> <---------
>>>> ACK
>>>> --------->
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't find anything definitive in RFC form. Paul's
>>>> offeranswer draft talks about this I think.
>>>>
>>>> If I understand things, the right answer here is that it's not
>>>> supposed to carry any SDP and that you should ignore it if it
shows up.
>>>>
>>>> The question is, other than waste, what can go wrong if it is
there?
>>>> When we end up with clear text around the requirement, will it
>>>> say SDP SHOULD NOT, or MUST NOT appear?
>>>>
>>>> Or do I have this wrong?
>>>>
>>>> RjS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sip mailing list https://www1.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://www1.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://www1.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
>
--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 499 Thornall St.
Cisco Fellow Edison, NJ 08837
Cisco, Voice Technology Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.jdrosen.net
<http://www.jdrosen.net/>http://www.jdrosen.net/>
PHONE: (408) 902-3084
http://www.cisco.com <http://www.cisco.com/>http://www.cisco.com/>
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.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://www1.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
*****Aricent-Restricted *****=
"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intended solely for the use of
the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be
circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error,
please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly
prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for
loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus."
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.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
