On Nov 21, 2007, at 10:57 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
There can be several UPDATEs with their associated 200-UPDATES
before the 200-INVITE.
Remember that UPDATE is a nonINVITE transaction and there may be a
_long_ time between the UPDATE and the 200-INVITE.
Paul drew the arrow backwards for the 200-UPDATE though - did that
mislead you?
Ah, yes, I read that Alice had sent a second conflicting offer in
UPDATE.
However, even with this directionality, the answer in the INVITE-200,
if present, would have to be a copy of the answer in the 183. This
doesn't create any error I can see, it just illustrates the UPDATE
race condition that would have existed even had there not been an
answer in the 183. Early media, early session, and UPDATE were all
bad ideas (probably all because of forking and PSTN interactions)
IMHO, and I'm pretty sure reliable provisionals are on that list too.
Alice Bob
| INVITE offer1 |
|----------------->|
| 183 answer1 |
|<-----------------|
| PRACK |
|----------------->|
| 200 PRACK |
|<-----------------|
| UPDATE offer2 |
|<-----------------|
| 200 UP answer2 |
|<-----------------|
| 200 IN SDP? |
|<-----------------|
Now what should be in the 200 for the invite?
Its better to do what is already required - send no SDP in the
200 for the invite.
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
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
