Hi, >>>>"When a forking proxy receives a non-2xx final response which >>>>terminates one or more (if forking has occured downstream a final >>>>response received by the forking proxy MAY terminate multiple early >>>>dialogs), and the proxy does not intend to forward the final >>>>response immedialetly (due to the rules for a forking proxy), >>>>and the UAC has indicated support of the 199 response code, the proxy >>>>SHOULD generate and send a 199 response upstream for the early dialog >>>>on which the non-2xx final response was received, unless the proxy has previously >>>>recieved and forwarded a 199 response for the dialog." >>> >>>Wow! We really must shorten this sentence. In particular I don't like
>>>including a second normative sentence in parentheses within the main >>>sentence. >> >>I can try to think of more simple wording. >> >>And, text suggestions are of course always welcome :) > >Along the same lines, I found text about support for 100rel also confusing. I think the preference is that this response be not sent reliably, though the normative strength is slightly week for UAS as >compared to a forking proxy. I think it should be simplified and just say that 100rel option does not have significance for this. As an addition, it will also simplify it's association with offer-answer >exchange (fact that 199 should have offer sdp for delayed media Invite) Well, one of the previous open issues were whether it should be allowed to send 199 reliably, and the proposed way forward was to allow the UAS to send it reliably. Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ 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
