Thomas,
On 2009-02-06 02:14, Thomas Schierl wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> On 2009-02-04 22:24, Thomas Schierl wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Brian, all,
>>>
>>> Brian, thanks a lot for carrying out the review!
>>>
>>> Here are our replies:
>>>
>>> 1. We do not think that it is required for the offerer to find out, why
>>> the offer has been rejected. At least we do not know any context where
>>> the reason for rejecting an offer is indicated.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe I should be more precise about my question. You say that when the
>> sender receives:
>>
>>
>>>> (2) with a refusal to the request (e.g., 488
>>>> Not acceptable here or 606 Not acceptable in SIP).
>>>>
>>
>> then
>>
>>
>>>> In the
>>>> second case, if the sender of the offer still wishes to establish the
>>>> session, it SHOULD re-try the request with an offer including only a
>>>> single media stream.
>>>>
>>
>> I don't understand how the sender decides that it is in this case
>> rather than any other reason for receiving a Not acceptable reponse.
>> Is it supposed to *guess* that the reason is the use of DDP? I don't
>> know what IF statement I would need, if I was writing code for the
>> sender.
>> The problem would not arise if there was a specific "DDP Not acceptable"
>> response.
>>
> Ok, I got it now. What would be an appropriate way forward here?
> Removing the part "In the second case ..."? Or refining the language,
> saying something like: if the sender has identified, that only "DDP" can
> be the problem, then ...
Something like that. If I was implementing this, I guess I would end up
with some logic like this:
IF response=="Not acceptable" AND DDP_sent==TRUE
THEN try again without DDP
ELSE report failure
My concern is that a junior programmer reading your document
might not reach the correct solution without some extra words.
Brian
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>>
>>> 2. "Aforementioned" can be removed in RFC editor processing (AUTH48), or
>>> IESG note.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>> 3. DDP and RDMA in the RFC4296 sense are about as far away technically
>>> than it gets from SDP signaling. Confusion is, in our opinion,
>>> unlikely. Can we ask the MMUSIC chairs and Cullen for guidance here?
>>>
>>
>> Sure. I have no strong feeling about this.
>>
>> Regards
>> Brian
>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
