[Sipping] 答复: Rollback issue: a proposal

gao.yang2@zte.com.cn Wed, 04 March 2009 03:44 UTC

Return-Path: <gao.yang2@zte.com.cn>
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 960743A6891; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:44:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -88.542
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-88.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.141, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_82=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_SPAM=3.798, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 cyqYava76DG2; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:44:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.zte.com.cn (unknown [202.103.147.144]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327383A684C; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:44:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.30.3.18] by 10.30.2.249 with StormMail ESMTP id 35764.3746375073; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 12:06:56 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse1.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id n243j4SZ006153; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:45:04 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from gao.yang2@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <49AD3182.10707@ericsson.com>
From: gao.yang2@zte.com.cn
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OF0621D0AA.8F381820-ON4825756F.0011D369-4825756F.0014965E@zte.com.cn>
Sender: gao.yang2@zte.com.cn
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:44:50 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 2009-03-04 11:44:59, Serialize complete at 2009-03-04 11:44:59
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0014965B4825756F_="
X-MAIL: mse1.zte.com.cn n243j4SZ006153
Cc: sipping-bounces@ietf.org, sipping <sipping@ietf.org>
Subject: [Sipping] 答复: Rollback issue: a proposal
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 03:44:56 -0000

More comments for 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-camarillo-sipping-reinvite-00.txt

1. UA can send target refresh and session modification(limited for 
address\port) automatically. So, I think for BCP level, it is better to 
separate target refresh from session modification which need user's 
interaction. Because make something deniable together with something 
dis-deniable is not friendly.

2. As your proposal, UAS of Re-INVITE is in pending state of target 
refresh, then choices is that:
2.1 the UAS will never send any more UPDATE before the final response of 
Re-INVITE;
2.2 trying a new UPDATE. And after recv the peer's 200OK(with the target 
refresh as Re-INVITE), it commit the target refresh for this successful 
UPDATE/200OK.
    And then UAS can treat the session modification separately.

3. In "3.  Clarifications on the Target Refresh Procedure", your proposal 
means that Re-INVITE's "Target Refresh" can only be committed after the 
200OK, even if there are UPDATE during it.
I think if UAC of Re-INVITE send another UPDATE(with the target refresh), 
and the UAS of Re-INVITE accept it with 200OK. The target refresh MUST be 
committed.

4. I think we talk too much about target refresh. Your proposal base on 
the combination of "target refresh" and "session modification". But I 
think the case is not usual(My point 1). And the unusual case has 
solution(My point 2 and 3).
 




Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> 
发件人:  sipping-bounces@ietf.org
2009-03-03 21:32

收件人
sipping <sipping@ietf.org>
抄送

主题
[Sipping] Rollback issue: a proposal






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


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

Comments are welcome.

Cheers,

Gonzalo
_______________________________________________
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




--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.