Re: [rtcweb] Agenda requests for Atlanta meeting

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)
<fluffy@cisco.com>wrote:

>
> On Oct 8, 2012, at 2:47 , Christer Holmberg <
> christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> 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@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>