Section 2.5 (sipping-services-examples-00.txt) of the attended transfer call
flow example:

When the F17 INVITE A -> C is received by C should the B - C session still
necessarily be present (because of the REPLACES as part of F17)?

Instead, if B releases B - C session before sending the "Refer To C" to A
(F15) then C would have made its resources (e.g., in a voice application
such as a SIP gateway - conventional telephone port to SIP VoIP gateway -
the DSP resources) freed and available for use when F17 INVITE arrives from
A.

Any comments?

-satya

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 12:14 PM
> To: 'Jonathan Rosenberg'; 'Aymeric MOIZARD'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] sip-services-example
> 
> 
> Hi Aymeric
> 
> Thanks for your comments on the draft.
> 
> You are right - these will get fixed in the next version, 
> which will be
> a sipping draft, by the way.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alan Johnston
> WorldCom
> sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of 
> > Jonathan Rosenberg
> > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 3:47 PM
> > To: Aymeric MOIZARD
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Alan Johnston
> > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] sip-services-example
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Aymeric MOIZARD wrote:
> > > 
> > > in "draft-ietf-sip-service-example", in the section:
> > >  2.1       Call Hold
> > > 
> > >  in the following messages:
> > >  F12 200 OK A -> Proxy 1 and F13 200 OK Proxy 1 -> B
> > >  F18 200 OK A -> Proxy 1 and F19 200 OK Proxy 1 -> B
> > > 
> > >  the originator's line ("o=") don't have an
> > >  updated <session id> <version>.
> > > 
> > >  This the same in most call-flows!
> > > 
> > >  Is this an error?
> > 
> > I believe so.
> > 
> > Also, the flows appear to modify the session id whenever it 
> > changes, in addition to the version. It has been my 
> > understanding that, in updates, the session id would remain 
> > unchanged, and the version would increment. This is 
> > documented in draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-offer-answer. 
> > 
> > > 
> > >  Is this right for a scenario where B sends a re-invite to
> > >  A. (only the beginning of the "o=" line is shown...)
> > >  Here, the sess_id and sess_version are updated each new 
> > SDP  message.
> > > 
> > >  INVITE A->B
> > >  o=- 200000001 20000001
> > >  200    B->A
> > >  o=- 200000002 20000002
> > >  INVITE B->A
> > >  o=- 200000003 20000003
> > 
> > This should be:
> > 
> >    o=- 200000001 20000002
> > 
> > >  200    A->B
> > >  o=- 200000004 20000004
> > 
> > This should be:
> >   
> >    o=- 200000002 20000003
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jonathan R.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.            72 Eagle Rock Avenue
> > Chief Scientist                         First Floor
> > dynamicsoft                             East Hanover, NJ 07936
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]                 FAX: (973) 952-5050
> > http://www.jdrosen.net                  PH:  (973) 952-5000
> > http://www.dynamicsoft.com 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sip-implementors mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/> sip-implementors
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
> 
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to