Re: [Sipping] Liaison Statement on offer/answer procedures

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Sat, 07 June 2008 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <sipping-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: sipping-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sipping-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C247A3A6805; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 10:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15CAE3A67A7 for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 10:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0cCCuI8nOsmW for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 10:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB64C3A6805 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 10:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,605,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="10409644"
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Jun 2008 13:42:04 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m57Hg4Ec012136; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 13:42:04 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m57Hg4Ow017109; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 17:42:04 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 7 Jun 2008 13:42:03 -0400
Received: from [10.86.249.5] ([10.86.249.5]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 7 Jun 2008 13:42:03 -0400
Message-ID: <484AC895.1050409@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:42:45 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <4822983A.2090906@ericsson.com> <482C2DE1.1080102@cisco.com> <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF062EC204@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se> <482C3F25.7070605@cisco.com> <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0BB548B@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net> <482D8058.6030608@cisco.com><CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF046C77CA@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se><48463DF1.7080109@ericsson.com> <4846B581.2070901@cisco.com><CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF046C77F8@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se><484719AF.9060207@cisco.com><CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF0688EB10@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se><4847FF97.1030804@cisco.com><CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF046C7805@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se> <48493CE6.3050800@cisco.com> <C0E80510684FE94DBDE3A4AF6B968D2D037D84FF@esealmw118.eemea.ericsson.se> <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF046C780A@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se> <48499AD6.4060701@cisco.com> <4849B4A5.6090906@cisco.com> <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF046C780D@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF046C780D@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jun 2008 17:42:03.0493 (UTC) FILETIME=[CBE4A150:01C8C8C5]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1990; t=1212860524; x=1213724524; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pkyzivat@cisco.com; z=From:=20Paul=20Kyzivat=20<pkyzivat@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Sipping]=20Liaison=20Statement=20on=20 offer/answer=20procedures |Sender:=20 |To:=20Christer=20Holmberg=20<christer.holmberg@ericsson.co m>; bh=m7M2HDrlZgF45DdMqT+WeWK0rbhmR4zZaMEqf0HrjOw=; b=Z4s4vq+SWXDTCxQUMqsAHFZwMEUkncPWladewqw/5BfGlbLY4m+WbC0xo1 4DvF6JdzsKqdeeeA5kAEiF6c93COcXIf7s4dqrWSqgpPM++/bzqcY5d+bbcP P3mmG0fMTs;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=pkyzivat@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
Cc: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens.com>, Mary Barnes <mary.barnes@nortel.com>, sipping List <sipping@ietf.org>, Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Liaison Statement on offer/answer procedures
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/sipping>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sipping-bounces@ietf.org


Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>  
>>>>> - If an UPDATE (inside or outside of a reINVITE) fails, any o/a in
>>>>> the UPDATE has no effect on the media session state.
>>>>> [Ian Elz ] OK, but how will we determine if an UPDATE is inside or
>>>>> outside a re-INVITE?
>>>> [Christer] I assume that any stateful entity must know whether it has
>>>> a pending re-INVITE transaction for a specific call or not.
>>> That's not actually enough. A UAS (or dialog stateful proxy) cannot know
>>> whether an UPDATE received shortly after a 2xx is sent upstream was sent
>>> before or after the 2xx was received by the UAC. We could add an
>>> explicit indication to that effect, I suppose...
>> Yes. Taking this approach to the current problem requires that we find a
>> solution to knowing whether the update was sent inside the reinvite or not.
> 
> If the UAS sends a 2xx response to the re-INVITE I guess it really doesn't matter when the UPDATE was sent.
> 
> But, if the UAS sends a non-2xx response to the re-INVITE I guess it would need to know when the UPDATE was sent: was it sent still assuming that the re-INVITE will succeed, OR was it sent bacause the re-INVITE did NOT succeed?
> 
> If we would go for the non-rollback alternative we wouldn't have this problem since the re-INVITE failure response doesn't affect UPDATE/PRACK offer/answers, and then it doesn't matter when the UPDATE was sent.

Exactly! That is an advantage of the non-rollback solution.
But the rollback solution has the advantage of providing a solution to 
the precondition rollback problem.

We need to pick our poison.

	Paul

> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
> This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
> Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP
> 
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP