[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Sipping] 答复: RE: RE: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: Closing the offer/answer rollback issue
If UE-B does not want to use video, he would have to send a
new SDP offer, where video is removed. Mid-boxes etc would then remove the
video.
If UE-B does not remove the video, he will be charged for
it etc. There is nothing "illegal" about that.
| "Christer Holmberg"
<christer.holmberg at ericsson.com>
2009-02-27 18:13
|
|
收件人
| <gao.yang2 at zte.com.cn>
|
|
抄送
| <sipping-bounces at ietf.org>,
<sipping at ietf.org>, "Gonzalo Camarillo"
<gonzalo.camarillo at ericsson.com>
|
|
主题
| RE: [Sipping] 答复: RE: RE: Re: ??:
Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re:
Closing the offer/answer rollback
issue |
|
So, what is the difference if the video is rejected using a
re-INVITE error response, or a new SDP offer?
The
difference is that:
"Late commitment", if user
reject it, any mid-box knows the modification should be discarded. And the two
sides have no way to use it anymore.
And everything is
clear.
"If in use, let it alone", if user reject it,
any mid-box let the modification alone. And the two sides can use it
(illegal).
And you may say the mid-box can close the
gate. Then which case should be close? I think the classfication would be the
same as (which case should)rollback.
If users use other codecs than have been negotiated in the SDP I think is
out of the scope of this discussion.
From: sipping-bounces at ietf.org
[mailto:sipping-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
gao.yang2 at zte.com.cn
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 12:07
PM
To: Christer Holmberg
Cc: sipping-bounces at ietf.org;
sipping at ietf.org; Gonzalo Camarillo
Subject: [Sipping] 答复: RE: RE: Re:
??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: Closing the offer/answer
rollback issue
I just mean that B can pretend to reject the adding vedio
modification request. But A and B use vedio after the rejecting 4xx.
That is yhe illegal
situation.
| "Christer Holmberg"
<christer.holmberg at ericsson.com>
2009-02-27 18:02
|
|
收件人
| <gao.yang2 at zte.com.cn>
|
|
抄送
| "Gonzalo Camarillo"
<gonzalo.camarillo at ericsson.com>, <sipping at ietf.org>,
<sipping-bounces at ietf.org>,
<wang.libo at zte.com.cn>
|
|
主题
| RE: RE: Re: ??: Re: [Sipping] ??:
Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: Closing the
offer/answer rollback issue |
|
Hi,
>If B do not do so, then A and
B can use it illegal. That's what I said times :)
I am not sure I
understand...
If B doesn't want to use video, he should remove it (no matter how it
is done).
If he doesn't remove it, it will be used, charged for etc. I don't
know what is "illegal" by that.
Regards,
Christer
| "Christer Holmberg"
<christer.holmberg at ericsson.com>
2009-02-27 17:31
|
|
收件人
| <wang.libo at zte.com.cn>, "Gonzalo Camarillo"
<gonzalo.camarillo at ericsson.com>
|
|
抄送
| <gao.yang2 at zte.com.cn>,
<sipping at ietf.org>,
<sipping-bounces at ietf.org>
|
|
主题
| RE: Re: ??: Re: [Sipping] ??: Re:
??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: Closing the
offer/answer rollback issue |
|
Hi,
If preconditions are
met for the video stream, but UE-B then decideds that he doesn't want to video,
an alternative to "late commitment" is for UE-B to send a new re-INVITE/offer to
UE-A and remove the video.
Regards,
Christer
From: wang.libo at zte.com.cn
[mailto:wang.libo at zte.com.cn]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 11:25
AM
To: Gonzalo Camarillo
Cc: Christer Holmberg;
gao.yang2 at zte.com.cn; sipping at ietf.org;
sipping-bounces at ietf.org
Subject: 答复: Re: ??: Re: [Sipping] ??: Re:
??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: Closing the offer/answer rollback
issue
Hi Gonzalo
Camarillo,
If
UE-A wants to communicate with UE-B by video, but UE-B only want to communicate
by audio.
and if
they uses the new SDP, when pre-conditions met, UE-B will send his/her videos
regardless
of UE-B's
willing.
And if UE-B
never send his video although the pre-conditions are met, then UE-A will be
puzzled why
he/she is charged for vedio while receiving NO vedio from
UE-B.
I think
this is a operational problem that we have to solve too.
regards,
Eric
| Gonzalo Camarillo
<Gonzalo.Camarillo at ericsson.com>
2009-02-27 17:10
|
|
收件人
| wang.libo at zte.com.cn
|
|
抄送
| christer.holmberg at ericsson.com,
gao.yang2 at zte.com.cn, sipping at ietf.org,
sipping-bounces at ietf.org
|
|
主题
| Re: ??: Re: [Sipping] ??: Re:
??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: ??: Re: Closing the
offer/answer rollback issue |
|
Hi,
> Also If
pre-conditions are met,and re-INVITE fails, UEs could use the
> new
SDP.
> This solution will give someone a way to escape charging.
> For example, if UEs use audio at the first time,
> then one
of them raise a re-INVITE with a SDP carrying both audio and
>
video,
> after the preconditions are met, then the other rejects the
re-INVITE,
> but they can communicate with both audio and video after
all.
No, if they negotiate video and the preconditions are met, they will
be
charged for video, regardless of what happens with the
re-INVITE.
Cheers,
Gonzalo
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE
Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely
property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential.
Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted
to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any
files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this
email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed
in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been
scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE
Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely
property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential.
Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted
to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any
files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this
email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed
in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been
scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE
Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely
property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential.
Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted
to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any
files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this
email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed
in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been
scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.