[Sipping] 答复: RE: 答复: RE: RE: non-200 response to PRACK

[gao.yang2 at zte.com.cn]

"Christer Holmberg" <christer.holmberg at ericsson.com>
写于 2009-04-09 14:26:21:


> 
> I would need to double check exactly what was agreed when.
> 

[Gao] :)

> At least we decided during an IETF meeting that it should be allowed
> to reject a PRACK SDP offer using a 4xx response. I think we then
> later on the list realized that a PRACK can be rejected for other
> reasons also.
> 
[Gao] If UAC(of PRACK) is introspective enough(deducing
from the *MUST* 2xx of UAS), I think there would be very infrequence of
4xx.

I still think it is not obligatory modification, but
a choice.

And if someone find a case, in which we MUST using
PRACK to do something rejectable, then it is a obligatory modification
of RFC3262. 


> Of course we can change previously made agreements (we have done 
> that before - for good and bad), but I think we should have good 
> reasons to do so.
> 
> Regards,

--------------------------------------------------------
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.