> 1a) It makes the presence of a To-tag no
>     longer sufficient enough to distinguish 
>     an invite from re-invite.

In my experience, that's never really been all that useful.
You always have session state for ongoing sessions; you can
use its absence or presence to determine whether an INVITE
is a re-INVITE.

> 1b) How does a 481 response to an INVITE 
>     over a subscription dialog effect the 
>     subscription dialog?

Consistency dictates that it would remove the subscription.
This should be clarified. I've opened a bug.

> Can the targets also be refreshed by a 
> new Contact supplied during the following:
> a) SUBSCRIBE's 2xx response?

Yes

> b) NOTIFY?

Yes

> c) NOTIFY's 2xx response?

Yes

> d) Future extension drafts which define 
>    target-refreshing-requests for a
>    subscription-dialog?

Yes

> Over an invite-dialog, can two SUBSCRIBE's
> successfully occur in opposite directions
> at the same time?  

Yes.

> Should the Contact of
> the 2xx or SUBSCRIBE be used for the
> target refresh?

Whichever you receive last.

> Should a 2xx invite response Contact take 
> precedence over a just received SUBSCRIBE?

Depends on which you receive last.

> How do we know which was actually sent
> first by the called party?

Should a 2xx INVITE response Contact take 
precedence over a just received INVITE?
How do we know which was actually sent
first by the called party?
It's the same question.

> Without timestamping all requests and 
> responses, one solution for all 
> these race conditions is to immediately 
> try multiple locations to resolve the 
> ambiguity.

Or you could just refrain from retargeting
ever few milliseconds like you're hopped up on
PCP. :)

To be fair, there are some corner cases that
can pop up. As I point out above with the
INVITE/INVITE response problem above, though,
these dialog handling problems are problems
with the base spec, not the extensions. We should
probably have a discussion about this particular
race condition on the SIP list.

/a
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to