|
Hello,
This is my understanding too, that the 202 response
code does not indicate the successfull completion of a transaction (with later
information to be provided...)
but instead it extends the transaction, while the final
transaction result will be communicated with a REPORT
message.
The definition for the 202 reponse code should be
updated to reflect this.
10x,
Elena Tebeşoi
Software
Engineer Freescale Semiconductor
Tel.:
+40213052219 [ ]
Public [x] Freescale
Semiconductor Internal Use Only [ ] Freescale Semiconductor Confidential Proprietary From: mediactrl-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mediactrl-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Puneet Sharma Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 7:52 AM To: Tebesoi Elena-B10300; mediactrl at ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] "Media Control Channel Framework" clarificationsneeded Hi
Elena I agree with your point
mentioned in 1st query and think that there should be clearer
description in this regard. About 2nd
query, here is my understanding of a 202 response: In case a server is in
process of successfully handling a
control request from Client and while doing so its transaction timer expires
(which is 4 seconds in this case), it needs to update the client regarding the
receipt of request and at the same time update that this is not the final
response for the underlying package request. Server should then send 202
indicating the response for CONTROL request however at the same time indicating
that the transaction is yet not complete (note that REPORTs have same
transaction id). The updates regarding the package request (mixer/ivr) shall
follow in REPORT transactions. This comes prominently
into picture when downloading/uploading external files from/to an external
server (eg: see mediactrl-ivr: 4.2.2 src, 4.3.1.5
loc). Regards, Puneet
Sharma Senior Software
Engineer Ph: +91 124
4176333 x
5105 Mob: +91
9811621209 A R I
C E N T From:
mediactrl-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mediactrl-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tebesoi
Elena-B10300 Hello, There are some paragraphs from
draft-ietf-mediactrl-sip-control-framework-10 that I find to be ambiguous and I
would appreciate if you can clarify them. 1. The first observation is that the
terms 'the Client' and 'the Server' are not used in a consistent way. "The initial SYNC request allows the
timeout period for the control-channel keep alive
mechanism to be negotiated. The following rules MUST be followed for the initial
SYNC request: There are several other places
inside the draft where the same _expression_ is used, implying the interaction of
two Clients (e.g. 6.3.4.2. Package Negotiation). 2. The second question is about the
202 Reponse Code. My question is: the 202 response
indicates the completion of a successful transaction or that the transaction
will be extended? Elena Tebeşoi
Software
Engineer Freescale Semiconductor
Tel.:
+40213052219 [ x ]
Public [
] Freescale Semiconductor Internal Use Only [
] Freescale Semiconductor Confidential
Proprietary "DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error,please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus." |