Michael Procter wrote:
Hi Adam,
Adam Roach wrote:
Ah -- "statelessly" means something very different to you than it does
to me. I think you need to explicitly call out that you're proposing a
modification to the basic INVITE transaction model defined in RFC 3261
for this new response.
This, combined with prohibiting provisional responses, would seem to
have the desired effect.
I don't think there is any proposed modification. The response should
be sent according to the rules of RFC 3261 section 8.2.7.
Wow -- I had completely forgotten about 8.2.7.
Amongst other
things, this specifically prohibits provisional responses.
I think the draft should explicitly mention this section.
Yes, that would be a significant improvement. I think you'll also want
to give the cookie the same properties as 8.2.7 describes for to-tags.
/a
_______________________________________________
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
