[Sip] grouping bis open issues: CANCEL related
Rohan Mahy <rohan@cisco.com> Sat, 08 September 2001 18:56 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28523 for <sip-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 14:56:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA00310; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 14:37:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA00280 for <sip@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 14:37:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.163.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28380 for <sip@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 14:36:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imop.cisco.com (imop.cisco.com [171.69.11.44]) by sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id f88Ib6x08149 for <sip@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 11:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rmahy-home-nt (rmahy-dsl1.cisco.com [10.19.53.122]) by imop.cisco.com (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ABP79069; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 11:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010905211554.01cea620@lint.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rmahy@lint.cisco.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 11:37:10 -0700
To: sip@ietf.org
From: Rohan Mahy <rohan@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id OAA00282
Subject: [Sip] grouping bis open issues: CANCEL related
Sender: sip-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi, Based on Jonathan's open issues presentation ( http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/meets/ietf51/slides/pres-jdrosen-sip_bis_open -ietf51.ppt ), and the closure of 6 of those issues on the list last night, I count 19 open issues remaining, of which 7 are CANCEL related, and 7 are SDP related. Perhaps if we discuss these in a group, we might close them faster. The following open issues are all related to CANCEL. I've addded my comments/proposals/2 cents inline: #7 "CANCEL for non-INVITE" >Spec allows CANCEL for non-INVITE. Why is that silly? >Non-INVITE must be answered immediately, CANCEL usage therefore always a >race condition. >Why does it make sense? May still be human interaction, Timeouts wish to >give up when no response comes >Proposal: remove [also reference recent list discussions] rohan> i think CANCEL for non-INVITEs is a waste of bits in the spec. if you get a cancel for non-INVITE, just send a 200 and be done. #72 "CANCEL for multicast" >Spec says that servers send no response to a multicast CANCEL >How does client know when to stop retransmitting? No way! >Proposals: >1) Never send CANCEL over multicast >2) Never send SIP over multicast >3) Just continue retransmitting until timeout >4) Send CANCEL responses over multicast (May need to limit scope) rohan> I propose the first option: (never cancel over multicast), although the second (deprecate SIP over Multicast) is also acceptable to me. #118 "481 then BYE" (OK not really a CANCEL issue, but similar) >Bis-04 says that if you get a 481 to INVITE, consider the call leg down >Question: should you send BYE? >Proposal: YES! >Why? Dont want to change fact that mid-call re-INVITE failures dont >terminate call. One way to terminate calls >[If media streams from A->B generate errors to A, or RTCP times out, >re-INVITE to B. If that generates 481, then BYE] rohan> I concur with the proposal. #121 "reason codes for CANCEL/BYE" >Would like to have BYE/CANCEL Reason phrases/codes >- Compatible with PSTN >- Differing UA behaviors depending on reason for CANCEL >- UA hangup vs. other branch completed (drop to voicemail!) >- 3pcc treatments >Issue: what codes to use >Proposal: existing response codes/reason phrases >Mostly for 3pcc case >But: need more! Like why CANCEL was sent in forking case rohan> This is new functionality, and does not belong in bis IMO. Some draft such as Visited or cc-diversion could easily provide this type of information. #122 "cancel on 200/600 strength" >When a forking proxy gets a 2xx/6xx on a branch, is CANCEL of other branches >a: 1) MAY, 2) MUST, or 3) SHOULD >Bis-03 and previous were MAY, -04 is SHOULD >Why? Without cancellation, burden moves to UA; UA doesnt know if proxy >forked! Would always need to send CANCEL after 2xx >Why not? Useful apps for not cancelling >Proposal: change to MUST, MAY use caller-prefs to turn off #130 "BYE vs. CANCEL" >To hang up a call before a final response, does the UAC >1) BYE, no tags >2) CANCEL, then BYE if 2xx >3) CANCEL + BYE no tags >Related: can CANCEL have tags to be directed >Related: can you send BYE for a 1xx early leg >Proposal: >CANCEL for all, then BYE on 2xx >You can terminate a particular early leg with BYE w/ tags >[CANCEL w/ tags is worse since: No bodies, Not e2e] rohan> I concur with both proposals (#122 & #130) thanks, -rohan _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list http://www1.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
- [Sip] grouping bis open issues: CANCEL related Rohan Mahy
- RE: [Sip] grouping bis open issues: CANCEL related Jonathan Rosenberg