[Sip] Re: draft-ietf-sip-replaces-04.txt

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Wed, 20 August 2003 12:34 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 IAA06427 for <sip-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:34:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19pSAK-00021P-1A for sip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:34:16 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h7KCYG9m007767 for sip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:34:16 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19pSA6-00020Z-2e; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:34:02 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19pS9D-0001yE-Fc for sip@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:33:07 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA06353 for <sip@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:33:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19pS9C-0000FJ-00 for sip@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:33:06 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19pS9B-0000Ev-00 for sip@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:33:05 -0400
Received: from cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Aug 2003 05:39:28 -0700
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h7KCVM7b015301; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 05:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cisco.com ([161.44.79.70]) by flask.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id ABR33500; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:31:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3F436A19.6080103@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:31:21 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rohan Mahy <rohan@cisco.com>
CC: sip@ietf.org
References: <40C3D8B0-D26A-11D7-93EC-0003938AF740@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Sip] Re: draft-ietf-sip-replaces-04.txt
Sender: sip-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Rohan Mahy wrote:
> Paul,
> 
> Thanks for bringing this up.  I think the draft needs to distinguish 
> between these cases:
> 
> 1) The UA receives an offer with no compatible media and does not wish 
> to maintain a session with no associated media.
> 
> 2) The UA receives an offer but does not wish to send/receive media at 
> the moment (possibly because it is negotiating a session using 3pcc on 
> behalf of another UA).
> 
> I think the same distinction applies to UAs that receive "ordinary" 
> INVITEs.  They can accept an offer but reject all the m-lines, or they 
> can send a 4xx response. So...

I agree that this is a general issue for invites - or perhaps more 
generally for offer/answer.

> - Do you think 3261 needs any clarification to make this distinction 
> obvious?
> - Can you propose some text for Replaces that makes clear my original 
> intention (what you do in case 1), while still allowing for case 2?

I have been thinking about this problem for some time. I have an idea, 
but I have been reluctant to offer it because it seems to be overly 
complex. Nevertheless...

How about preconditions?

- In the absence of preconditions to the contrary, the assumption would 
be that the offerer is satisfied with whatever it can get, including 
nothing at all. It is up to the answerer to decide what is sufficient 
and what is not.

- some kind of new media precondition would provide the opportunity for 
the two sides to do an extended negotiation for mutually satisfactory 
media before alerting anyone. If it becomes apparent that the conditions 
cannot be met, then the invitation containing the offers and answers fails.

I haven't thought enough about this to go further and define exactly how 
the precondition would be expressed. But how does the general concept sound?

An advantage to this is that it doesn't change 3261, and is upward 
compatible with current practice.

	Paul


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://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