Can add other cross-overs like Re-INVITE-Re-INVITE (especially when both dont carry any SDP), Re-INVITE-UPDATE Some thoughts: In Section 2.1, CANCEL cross over can result in a subsequent BYE from the UAC. In Section 2.2, for BYE cross over, I think that either of the UAs can still respond with a 200ok assuming that the BYE it had sent was lost and then can stop waiting for a response to its BYE (cuz it doesnot make any more sense to even retry the BYE)
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:35:15 -0600, Jun KOSHIKO(Private) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Folks, > > We are now doing new examples work, as chairs announced on SIPPING WG > meeting on Thursday morning. > > The draft can be found at > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hasebe-sipping-semi-regular-examples-00.txt > > This draft gives examples of SIP semi-regular call flows. We would like > to clarify less ordinary call flows or corner cases, such as the call > flow in which a BYE from UAC and UAS crosses each other. > > Followings are our purposes: > - To help implementation or testing of SIP, by describing the plain > examples about difficult parts of RFCs. > - Improvement in interconnectivity by minimizing the difference between > implementers to clarify the behaviors. > > We would like to ask you followings: > - Please review the draft > - Send additional examples to authors > - Better idea for title? > (We think the title "Semi Regular examples" could be better.) > > Five examples are included in 00 version. And we would like to accept > additional examples. We also appreciate your comments to existing > examples. > > Any comments and thoughts are appreciate. > > Regards, > Jun Koshiko > > _______________________________________________ > 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
