IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Christer Holmberg" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Fri, 06 June 2008 21:15 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 2A3C33A6A6A; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 14:15:13 -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 269FA3A6875 for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 14:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.144
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, 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 K-lvBzrnl-A6 for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 14:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (mailgw3.ericsson.se [193.180.251.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 030343A67AD for <sipping@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 14:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 2616620476; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 23:15:19 +0200 (CEST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-af89ebb00000193b-35-4849a8e701aa
Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 0702620069; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 23:15:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.4]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 6 Jun 2008 23:15:18 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:11:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF046C780B@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Sipping] Liaison Statement on offer/answer procedures
Thread-Index: AcjH2gHoOJSIF0SJRZGuT/x33YrGmwABCgBwAAjooJMAAdSiIAAEMUG9
References: <C7FFFFDD779F2047A0FBAC811C5C5A00062A0401@xmb-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com>
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh)" <sanjsinh@cisco.com>, Ian Elz <ian.elz@ericsson.com>, "Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat)" <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jun 2008 21:15:18.0804 (UTC) FILETIME=[6C146540:01C8C81A]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: sipping List <sipping@ietf.org>, "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens.com>, Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, Mary Barnes <mary.barnes@nortel.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

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.
>
>But is a UA allowed to send UPDATE while re-Invite transaction hasn't
>completed?
>
>It is not clear whether it is legal or not because of conflicting text
>in RFC 3261.
>Here is text from sec. 14.1, which suggests this is legal:
>       
>   However, a UA MAY initiate a regular transaction while an INVITE
>   transaction is in progress.
>
>And according to the following text from sec. 28, this call flow is
>illegal.
>
>   o  RFC 2543 was silent on whether a UA could initiate a new
>      transaction to a peer while another was in progress.  That is now
>      specified here.  It is allowed for non-INVITE requests, disallowed
>for INVITE.

The preconditions mechanism uses UPDATEs while the INVITE is still pending, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed also for re-INVITE (a re-INVITE is a mid-call INVITE, so.. :)

Of course, the UPDATE cannot carry a new SDP offer unless you still haven't received an answer for your previous offer.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email