Hi,
The problem is that if the receiver receives a message with Cseq=X, it doesn't matter whether it will receive Cseq=X-1 later, because CSeq doesn't have to be incremented by one.In particular, one area which needs to be covered is how the embedded information tranfer caters for out of sequence delivery, given that the carriage mechanism does not guarantee order of delivery in all circumstances of SIP usage.I'm wondering what you have in mind here.
It is possible to send request R1 then send R2 before getting a response to R1. And then it is possible for R2 to arrive before R1, and in that case it will be accepted. But then, when R1 arrives there will be a CSeq error so it will be rejected.
The end result is that you can get *nondelivery* of a message, but not *out of order delivery*.
I'm not sure if we are agreeing or talking past one another.
I guess the question is:
Shall it be possible to send a new INFO with the SAME Info Package type as in an ongoing INFO transaction?
If you have negotiated multiple Info Package types, being forced to only have one outstanding INFO transaction is too restrictive, I think.
Paul
Regards,
Christer
Thanks, Paul
_______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
_______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip