On Nov 21, 2007, at 5:15 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
That may seem simple and harmless. But it gets ugly when additional offer/answers happen:Alice Bob | INVITE offer1 | |----------------->| | 183 answer1 | |<-----------------| | PRACK | |----------------->| | 200 PRACK | |<-----------------| | UPDATE offer2 | |<-----------------| | 200 UP answer2 | |<-----------------| | 200 IN SDP? | |<-----------------| Now what should be in the 200 for the invite?Its better to do what is already required - send no SDP in the 200 for the invite.
Huh. Is it actually ok to send a 200 OK for the UPDATE before sending the 200 OK for the INVITE? That seems like a race condition from hell.
If it's OK only because you can claim the INVITE's O/A sequence completed before the UPDATE was sent, then we're making the SIP state machine dependent on the O/A model, and that's just wrong.
-- Dean _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
