RE: [Sip] Open Issue #58: Rejected mid-call SDP in 2xx

> I suppose that we could say that its a MUST to use the 
> existing SDP if you
> know it. A UA that sends a re-INVITE w/o SDP MUST be prepared 
> for SDP that
> may be different for the reason you describe. Hopefully its something
> acceptable. If its not, BYE the call. I don't think we can 
> reasonably do
> better. We're already talking about the case where the UA has 
> failed and
> recovered.
> 
> Sound OK?

Sounds fine if the above text also includes 
the portion from your original recommendation 
concerning the connection address and port 
potentially changing.  This would specifically 
be for those devices that respond to holds 
with holds.  I guess that it would also have
to accommodate for the new hold SDP format 
that is being discussed.

The "MUST" also prevents a 3PCC/B2BUA from 
using a re-INVITE without SDP to potentially 
get the UA to send an SDP with all media that 
it would like to use.  However I guess that 
this is acceptable since the 3PCC shouldn't be 
a necessary interface to establish these extra 
media streams for an established call.

_______________________________________________
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