On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 07:27 +0000, Michael Procter wrote: > Adam Roach wrote: > > Ah -- "statelessly" means something very different to you than it does > > to me. I think you need to explicitly call out that you're proposing a > > modification to the basic INVITE transaction model defined in RFC 3261 > > for this new response. > > > > This, combined with prohibiting provisional responses, would seem to > > have the desired effect. > > I don't think there is any proposed modification. The response should > be sent according to the rules of RFC 3261 section 8.2.7. Amongst other > things, this specifically prohibits provisional responses. > > I think the draft should explicitly mention this section.
And more importantly, according to 8.2.7, the recipient of an INVITE does *not* resend a 4xx response if it doesn't receive an ACK. At first read, this seems to violate the 3-way-handshake model of the INVITE transaction, but it doesn't -- If the 4xx got lost, the UAC will send it again, prompting the UAS to send an identical 4xx response. If the ACK gets lost, the UAS doesn't care. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
