Re: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting

Cullen Jennings <> Mon, 08 October 2012 23:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC6121F8715 for <>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bM1g5m4SBko7 for <>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E615421F8703 for <>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:08:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F3F4B22E253; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 19:08:48 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Cullen Jennings <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:09:29 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Roman Shpount <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:08:56 -0000

Walk me through what the call flow would like it both endpoints were SIP UA's so I understand it better. 

Note - I'm not against folks trying to figure out clone. I'm saying that we should not get rid of PRANSWER.

On Oct 8, 2012, at 15:58 , Roman Shpount <> wrote:

> Cullen,
> I have an existing interop problem with SIP serial forking that I cannot solve with the proposed schema. With PRANSWER, how would I handle SIP UPDATE sith SDP received in early dialog?
> Regards,
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2012, at 2:47 , Christer Holmberg <> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to discuss the different alternatives in order to support forking, e.g. whether we use cloning, whether we simply set additional local descriptor, and whether we can get rid of PRANSWER.
> Seriously? we have discussed this so many times and always come to the same conclusion. I have not seen anything on the list that suggests why we need to remove this or how mapping to SIP 180 with sequential forking is going to work without it. It also has other important uses. There are a bunch of changes that are needed to the JSEP draft to remove some of the inconsistencies in this and clarify some parts but I'd rather wait till we had that updated before we got into a whole discussion about exploding it yet again.
> Why don't we have a phone call to try and outline what the problems you are trying to solve that the current solution does not work for then figure out how much we want to explode this.
> I'll note that current clone text has lots of "miracles happen here, insert supper fluffy hand wave" in it and plenty of weasel room on failure to allocate required resources on the clone. It's more or less a sketch of an idea at this point. I'm perfectly happy to see people try and sort out the details on clone but using it explode the consensus we have come to around PRANSWER seems like a really bad idea at this point.
> Cullen
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list