Hi, >>Should the 199 response contain a Contact header? And if yes, in case a >>proxy sends it, should it contain the address of that proxy (since the UAS >>already sent a final response)? > >IF the 199 is sent reliably be the proxy must contain a Contact header >containing the address of the proxy, yes. > >>Should we say that a proxy may only generate and send a 199 when it >>receives a final error response on an INVITE client Transaction which >>was in the PROCEEDING state? (i.e. 1xx response was received before, so >>conceptually sending the 199 response is an action associated with the >>transition from PROCEEDING to COMPLETED) > >I am not sure I understand. The idea IS to send 199 when a final error >response is received by the forking proxy, if a >18x has previously been received. >[Rockson] PROCEEDING does not mean early-dialog is established, 100 Trying >also move INVITE client Transaction to >PROCEEDING state.
[Christer] 199 is only sent when an early dialog has been established. 100 Trying does not establish an early dialog. Regards, Christer Also, a forking proxy with multiple INVITE client Transaction may receive/forward 180 from one of them, and receive no provisional resp and final resp directly from the other one, so INVITE client Transaction's state is not dependable. The decision making must be done in TU. Christer Holmberg wrote: > Hi, > > I agree it may be a good idea to not forbid sending it reliably. > > I do think it would be good to have text, saying that it can be sent > unreliable even if reliable responses are required, though, so that proxies > aren't forced to terminate PRACKs etc. > > Regards, > > Christer > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 21. kesäkuuta 2008 1:38 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip] Draft submission: draft-ietf-sip-199-00 > > From: "Christer Holmberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [CHH] Whether the text should be in the document at all depends on if we > allow 199 to be sent reliably in the first place. Based on the comments > received so far we should not mandate 199 to be sent reliably, even if > 100rel is required by the UAC. But, the question if whether we want to > FORBID sending it reliably. > > If we ever might allow 199 to be used for HERFP, we should admit the > possibility of sending it reliably in the first draft. Otherwise, we'll be > locked out of sending it reliably in the future. > > Dale > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list https://www.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://www.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://www.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://www.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
