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

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Tue, 15 November 2011 04:31 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
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 1FD0E11E81B1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:31:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, 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 BYkibChpNDge for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:31:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7D511E81AA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:31:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pool-173-49-135-74.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([173.49.135.74] helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1RQAg9-0005On-Hm for rtcweb@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:31:25 -0600
Message-ID: <4EC1EAEB.9040009@jesup.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 23:30:35 -0500
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <4EC1D0B4.3000103@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EC1D0B4.3000103@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
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 04:31:30 -0000

On 11/14/2011 9:38 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> 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."

Yes, though I'll note that differing 200 OK's from 18x provisionals is 
in my experience far more common than identical 200 OK's.  (As Cullen 
alluded to.)


-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org