[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

答复: RE: non-200 response to PRACK


Thanks for your remind :)

But the two subject has association: this one is your proposed subject's precondition.

If we can accept all 200OK of PRACK, non-200 lead to termination of session, why next?

"Christer Holmberg" <christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

2009-04-09 12:56

<gao.yang2@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Paul Kyzivat" <pkyzivat@xxxxxxxxx>
<sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx>, <sipping@xxxxxxxx>
RE:  [Sipping] non-200 response to PRACK

Propose people use an appropriate subject.

From: sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of gao.yang2@xxxxxxxxxx
9. huhtikuuta 2009 4:45
Paul Kyzivat
sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx; sipping@xxxxxxxx; Christer Holmberg
[Sipping] 答复: Re: 答复: RE: Re: 答复: Re: 答复: Re: PRACK: Change MUST requirement to include SDP offer in first reliable provisional response


I just mean:

All the usage can be used in PRACK, we call it Set.

By current RFC3262, can be used in PRACK, we call it SubSet1.

SubSet1 is very small. And if we do usage beyond SubSet1, the termination of session is acceptable (for me).

So, I
recommend that the UAS return a 200 when it has not been able to process the PRACK due to an error, then terminate the session.

About authorization, I think, we can do authorization in PRACK(It is a choice, not mandatory thing.), but we should do not do it in PRACK by current RFC3262.

If people want to enrich SubSet1, I think it is needed to modify RFC3262 and find a way to solve the problem.



BTW: the mail thread is bigger than 40KB, I just send a mail bigger than 40KB.

Propose people cut the mail short :)

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@xxxxxxxxx> 写于 2009-04-08 20:04:27:

> gao.yang2@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > Please see the previous mail:
> >
> > as UAS MUST return 2xx, then we can *deduce* that it is UAC's obligation
> > to make sure UAS will accept the PRACK.
> I think that in general we can presume that the UAC doesn't *expect*
> that its PRACK will be rejected. Yet the PRACK can fail for no fault on
> the part of the UAC, and no fault on the part of the UAS either.
> I've already given the example of authorization failure.
> Its simply a faulty spec that presumes it can ignore the possibility of
> errors. All we are trying to do is *fix* that so that things will
> continue to function in a predictable way in the face of an error.
> Would you honestly recommend that the UAS return a 200 when it has not
> been able to process the PRACK due to an error?
>    Thanks
>    Paul

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.

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.
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip
Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP

[IETF Announce]     [IETF Discussion]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Free Online Dating]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Big List of Linux Books]

Add to Google Powered by Linux