Re: [Sipping] Rollback issue: a proposal

[OKUMURA Shinji <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>Very concise documents!

I think so, too :)

comment inline.

Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>
>Hi,
>
>I have put together the following draft. It contains a proposal for the
>rollback issue that has been discussed on the list:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-camarillo-sipping-reinvite-00.txt
>

>3.  Clarifications on the Target Refresh Procedure
>   target again.  In this case, a 200 (OK) response to the re-INVITE
>   would accept the latest target refresh within the re-INVITE.  That
>   is, the target refresh performed by the UPDATE request.

IMO, it is not correct that "a 200 (OK) response to the re-INVITE
would accept the latest target refresh". Because 200 response is
returned by not Contact but Via header, 200 is unrelated to the
Contact of the UPDATE request.

>5.  UAC Behavior
>   so that the session can continue.  This new offer/answer exchange
>   should contain the minimum set of changes needed to continue the
>   session in order to minimize the chances of the UAS rejecting it as
>   well.

"the minimum set" I think is, 
as if all o/a exchange had been done by UPDATE, UAC should
revert to the pre-INVITE state.

>I have also written another short draft on an issue related to
>preconditions that was also discussed on the list in one of the
>rollback-related threads:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-camarillo-sipping-precons-00.txt


>   level, the UAS sends an UPDATE request (10) removing the
>   preconditions from the audio stream.  This indicates that the audio
>   stream is now in use.

RFC3312 restrick downgrading the desired strength.
IMO "removing the precondition" is equal to downgrading 
the desired strength, isn't it?

>Comments are welcome.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Gonzalo