Hi,
>>>11) I can't follow the second paragraph of section 9 at all. Can you
>>>rephrase it?
>>>Once I know what its trying to say, I'll propose alternate text.
>>
>>What it is supposed to say is that you cannot send a 199 if you are
>>required (by the offer/answer rules) to include SDP.
>
>Thinking about this further...
>
>This means that a proxy must track the o/a state of the dialog usage in
>order to know whether it can send a 199 or not. That could be a
>considerable burden. It requires maintaining partial dialog state rather
>than simply transaction state, and also requires more parsing of
>messages and potentially message bodies. (E.g. with multipart.)
>
>This has me again questioning the cost/benefit tradeoff of the whole
>thing. Of course in this case the cost is to the proxy, and the benefit
>is to the UAC.
I guess we could simply say never to insert an SDP body in the 199 response. I
don't think it would make much harm, since the dialog is terminated in any case.
And, this could only happen when/if 199 is sent reliably, since unreliable
provisional responses can't carry offer/answers in the first place...
Regards,
Christer
Paul
_______________________________________________
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
