Yep, unless there really is a new "MUST" to write in the 199 draft.
regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 5:54 AM > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Tan, Ya Ching (NSN - DE/Munich) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Sip] Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07 - > comment onsection 7 > > > Hi, > > >Is that a "MUST" or something that is not must like "RFC > 3261 specifies > when a final response is sent." > > RFC 3261 does specify when a final response is sent. Would > you prefer something like: > > "The 199 Early Dialog Terminated response code does not > "replace" a final response. RFC 3261 specifies when a final > response is sent." > > Regards, > > Christer > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > > Behalf Of > > > Christer Holmberg > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:09 PM > > > To: Tan, Ya Ching (NSN - DE/Munich) > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [Sip] Draft new version: draft-ietf-sip-199-07 > > - comment > > > on section 7 > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > >2) Section 7 Backward compatibilility > > > > > > > >"The 199 Early Dialog Terminated response code does not > > "replace" a > > > >final response. A final response is always sent, after one > > > or many 199 > > > provisional responses have been sent." > > > > > > > >A final response is NOT always sent. If the forking has > > > resulted in at > > > >least one 2xx being sent on the server transaction, no > > > 3xx/4xx/5xx/6xx > > > is allowed to be sent to the same > > > >server transaction after the 2xx. > > > > > > > >So these early dialogs which receive non-2xx final > response AFTER a > > > first 2xx final response will not get 199 but will > > > >only be considered terminated by the UAC 64*T1 seconds after the > > > reception of the first 2xx response. Even those early > > > >dialogs for which 199 responses have been sent (because the final > > > responses were received before the first 2xx) will not > > > >receive a final response. > > > > > > > >RFC3261/13.2.2.4: > > > > > > > >"The UAC core considers the INVITE transaction completed > > > 64*T1 seconds > > > >after the reception of the first 2xx response. At this > > > point all the > > > >early dialogs that have not transitioned to established > > dialogs are > > > >terminated. Once the INVITE transaction is considered > > > completed by the > > > >UAC core, no more new 2xx responses are expected to arrive." > > > > > > > > > > I propose the following text: > > > > > > "The 199 Early Dialog Terminated response code does not > "replace" a > > > final response. A final response must always be sent when > > mandated by > > > the procedures in RFC3261." > > > > > > I think that would clarify that we are not modifying the core SIP > > > rules on sending final responses. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Christer > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ 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
