Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:22:12 +0000
From: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens.com>
In-reply-to: A
 <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF0A3D592E@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, sip@ietf.org
Message-id: <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0016B395D@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Thread-Topic: [Sip] New version (-04) of draft-ietf-sip-199
Thread-Index: AclwpMa2gVaTl0oqRZ+oKLyml2UY7wAEccgwAAJTriAACo7ZIA==
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
References: A
 <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF0A392F09@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se>
 <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D00167DF83@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net>
 A
 <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF0A3D592E@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: [Sip] New version (-04) of draft-ietf-sip-199
Precedence: list
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org

Christer,

> >>"When a forking proxy receives a non-2xx final response which
> >>terminates one or more (if forking has occured downstream a final
> >>response received by the forking proxy MAY terminate multiple early
> >>dialogs), and the proxy does not intend to forward the 
> >>final response immedialetly (due to the rules for a forking proxy),
> and 
> >>the UAC has indicated support of the 199 response code, the proxy 
> >>SHOULD generate and send a 199 response upstream for the 
> early dialog
> on which the
> >>non-2xx final response was received, unless the proxy has 
> >>previously recieved and forwarded a 199 response for the dialog."
> >
> >Wow! We really must shorten this sentence. In particular I 
> >don't like including a second normative sentence in 
> >parentheses within the main sentence.
> 
> I can try to think of more simple wording. 
> 
> And, text suggestions are of course always welcome :)
> 
How about:
"When a forking proxy receives a non-2xx final response that terminates
one or more early dialogs, if the proxy does not intend to forward the
final response immediately (in accordance with rules for a forking
proxy) and the UAC has indicated support for the 199 response code, the
proxy SHOULD generate and send a 199 response upstream for each early
dialog terminated on the downstream side by the non-2xx final response,
except for any early dialog for which the proxy has previously received
and forwarded a 199 response. Note that if forking has also occurred
downstream of the forking proxy, a final response received by the
forking proxy can terminate multiple early dialogs."

I have removed the normative statement that was in parentheses and
created a separate sentence at the end. However, I believe it does not
need to be normative - it is just a statement of something that arises
because of the normative provisions of RFC 3261.

I believe the proxy should send a 199 response on EACH affected early
dialog (unless 199 already sent). This too is reflected in my proposed
rewording.

I hope this helps.

John
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip