Hi, The recommendation about using increasing Cseqs is already in the draft.
5th paragraph of section 3.3 Gonzalo Prasanna Venkatesh wrote: > > Hi Gonzalo, > I also agree to Mike's suggestion. Can't a recommendation be made on > the INGRESS GW that the CSeq for an overlapped dial message should > monotonically increase, though each of the INVITEs constitute a different > dialog. This can help the EGRESS GW to drop out-of-order INVITEs. > Regards, > Prasanna > Huawei Technologies. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 11:38 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Sip] different messages with same call-id before 100 is sent > out > > In a message dated 11/28/2002 5:08:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > in the overlap case we do not care if the nth INVITE reaches the other > end before the (n-1)th INVITe, so you do not have to wait for anything > before sending the new INVITE. > > [MAP] This may be true as long as the "other end" knows to throw away the > old INVITE (with fewer digits). However, I believe that the very fact that > INVITE's can arrive out of order leads to significant difficulty, since > their correct interpretation depends on the order. > > Going back to some earlier comments, I believe there must be a requirement > that, for the PSTN-IP-PSTN case (which I think is the focus in this whole > discussion), that a single IAM received on the ingress side (of IP) must > result in exactly one IAM being sent on the egress side back to the PSTN. > There may be fewer (or no) SAMs sent than received, for example, if the IP > portion, at either the ingress or egress GW, does overlap to en-bloc > operation, or simply has the smarts to put multiple digits (from SAMs) > together. > > I believe that a solution to meeting this requirement (single IAM) has a > significant impact on all the other discussions about out-of-order INVITES, > same or different Call-IDs, etc. Therefore, unless it can be agreed that > this is a requirement, all the other discussion is meaningless. > > I raise this point especially with relation to my proposals in IEPREP for a > priority-based service for a military application which includes preemption > in the circuit switched world using SS#7 (MLPP). Multiple IAMs (for high > priority calls) would have the unacceptable result of preempting calls and > then releasing the IAM when another arrived (or took another path). > > Is it possible to agree that this single IAM rule should be followed? > > Mike Pierce > Artel -- Gonzalo Camarillo Phone : +358 9 299 33 71 Oy L M Ericsson Ab Mobile: +358 40 702 35 35 Telecom R&D Fax : +358 9 299 30 52 FIN-02420 Jorvas Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Finland http://www.hut.fi/~gonzalo _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
