Re: [Sipping] Rollback issue: a proposal //deadlock problem

[[e-mail]]

About draft-camarillo-sipping-precons-00:

The draft suggests UAS first using the modification in media level when 
resume from suspending state.

But if Re-INVITE has no Offer, the Offer in 183 from UAS, the the answerer 
is UAC. And it is UAC needing user's confirmation.
If people restrict that it is UAS first using new modification after 
suspending state for all the situation, it can solve the deadlock problem. 

But it will be violation of RFC3264.


Deadlock problem:
If people restrict that any later modification during suspending state is 
part of the ini-Offer/Answer in Re-INVITE.
Then, both UAC and UAS can be answerer. 
For examle, during suspending state, UAC added vedio stream(UAS is the 
answerer), then UAS changed the codec(UAC is the answerer).
Then, the UAC wait UAS using new stream, but UAS wait UAC using the new 
codec. That is deadlock.


--------------------------------------------------------
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.