IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Same answer in a provisional and a final response

"Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Tue, 15 November 2011 04:54 UTC

Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDEAA1F0C8D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:54:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.609
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pg0sYwl7aZE1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:54:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3715F1F0C4F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:54:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sonusmail05.sonusnet.com (sonusmail05.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.155]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAF4t4ka023204; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 23:55:04 -0500
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail05.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 14 Nov 2011 23:48:08 -0500
Received: from INBA-HUB01.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.86]) by sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:18:21 +0530
Received: from INBA-HUB02.sonusnet.com (10.70.51.87) by inba-hub01.sonusnet.com (10.70.51.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:18:21 +0530
Received: from INBA-MAIL01.sonusnet.com ([fe80::8d0f:e4f9:a74f:3daf]) by inba-hub02.sonusnet.com ([fe80::80b9:dc60:caf7:7dfc%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:18:20 +0530
From: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Same answer in a provisional and a final response
Thread-Index: AQHMoz/ClfMfBrysa0yDq8l5bZOwgZWtW5Lw
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 04:48:19 +0000
Message-ID: <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01CE877F@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
References: <4EC1D0B4.3000103@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EC1D0B4.3000103@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.70.53.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Nov 2011 04:48:21.0315 (UTC) FILETIME=[CCF46930:01CCA351]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Same answer in a provisional and a final response
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 04:54:30 -0000

Hi Gonzalo,

Agreed. IIUC, RTCWeb ROAP slide was discussing about forking issue wherein 
it is possible to have different answer in provisional (UAS1) and final 
response (UAS2). In case the callflow slide is shown with different to-tags,
it may be very clear.

Thanks
Partha 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>Of Gonzalo Camarillo
>Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 10:39 AM
>To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: [rtcweb] Same answer in a provisional and a final response
>
>Hi,
>
>with respect to today's discussion during the face-to-face session about
>whether a SIP UAS needs to place the same answer in a final response as
>it placed in a previous provisional response, this is the relevant text
>in RFC 3261:
>
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#page-80
>
>        "If the initial offer is in an INVITE, the answer MUST be in a
>         reliable non-failure message from UAS back to UAC which is
>         correlated to that INVITE.  For this specification, that is
>         only the final 2xx response to that INVITE.  That same exact
>         answer MAY also be placed in any provisional responses sent
>         prior to the answer."
>
>Cheers,
>
>Gonzalo
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email