Greetings, Here a few comments and questions concerning draft-ietf-sip-199-02.
Section 4 paragraph 4: Concerning "the client SHALL discard the 199 responses", is "SHALL" too strong since 100rel may be used? The strength of "SHALL" is likely only an issue if 18x did not contain 100rel and 199 did. Section 4 last paragraph: The use of "will act" should likely be changed to reflect an RFC 2119 defined word. Section 6 paragraph 2 first sentence: The use of "proxy MUST generate" should likely be downgraded to SHOULD or MAY too clearly allow the proxy to avoid sending 199 when forwarding to server expected to answer quickly (such a voice mail server). Section 6 paragraph 2 last sentence: Since using another's To tag when sending the 199, the draft should mention something concerning headers Contact and Record-Route. If proxy chooses not to add them, a missing Contact and Record-Route will not be an issue for UAC; however another proxy (not supporting this draft) may be surprised to see their Record-Route entry missing. Additionally since this draft defines a 1xx with To tag which does not create a dialog (unless section 4 paragraph 4 modified), does this draft update RFC 3261? Section 7: Concerning "MUST reply to such requests with a 481", the text should likely defer behavior to RFC 3261 concerning receiving requests with To tag associated terminated/unknown dialog. Sections 9 and 10: Concerning the "MUST NOT"s related to SDP, should they be downgraded to a "SHOULD NOT" to still allow offer/answer compliance if desired? _______________________________________________ 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
