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

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Tue, 15 November 2011 02:38 UTC

Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.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 877CB1F0D30 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:38:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.534
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 jHtzc9kW0p5m for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:38:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C851F0C69 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:38:49 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b3eae00000252a-ca-4ec1d0b85225
Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 68.B2.09514.8B0D1CE4; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 03:38:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [131.160.126.137] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.91) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 03:38:47 +0100
Message-ID: <4EC1D0B4.3000103@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:38:44 +0800
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111103 Thunderbird/3.1.16
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: [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 02:38:50 -0000

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