Subject: Re: [Sipping] Closing the offer/answer rollback issue - my draft in two sentences

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:01:37 +0800

The main concept in my draft is:

Modification triggered by Re-INVITE MUST rollback as the failure of 
Re-INVITE.  --That is the original concept of RFC3261

Any committed new modification during Re-INVITE with other SIP 
transaction, would have nothing to do with the Re-INVITE's failure or 
success.  --That is the original concept of RFC3311.

And I think the draft can make the best of both worlds.

"Christer Holmberg" <[email-masked]> 
2009-02-28 17:14

收件人
"gaoyang" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, "Gonzalo 
Camarillo" <[email-masked]>
抄送
<[email-masked]>
主题
RE: [Sipping] Closing the offer/answer rollback issue - definitionof "in 
use"

Hi,
 
>In fact, the solution in Chair's original mail is about "Let alone in use 
modification".
>Not rollback.
>  
>And the solution is not the same as the ANSWER(comit by O/A) to 3GPP. 
 
That is true. But, I don't think anyone has claimed that it would be the 
same, or?
 
So, what we are discussing here is whether we are going to change/modify 
the agreement we already made. No matter if we choose "in use", your 
draft, always-full-rollback, or whatever else, it would be a 
change/modification to the current agreement.
 
>What I said here is just for SIP itself. You know that there is no 
invention in my draft.
>I do not want to see SIP becomes a heavy and ugly one.
>And I will add some new drawbacks to the solution in Chair's original 
mail later. 
 
I think people have some difficulties to follow the discussion in its 
current form. 
 
For example, is "late commitment" the only difference between your 
proposal and the in-use proposal? Or, are there other differences?
 
So, first I think it would be good to get a short and clear description of 
the proposals we now have on the table. I think it should be possible to 
present a solution on a couple of PowerPoint slides. If you need a whole 
draft to describe your proposal I think it's too complex for this specific 
issue.
 
Regards,
 
Christer

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:05:34 +0100
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Closing the offer/answer rollback issue - 
definition of "in use"

Hi, 

>I just mean that talk about my draft. To compare it with current one, 
which is better!  
 
The current essential correction draft is based on the current rollback 
agreement. If we change/modify the agreement, the draft will be updated 
accordingly. 

>Anything can be talked here should under some type of restriction?  
 
Nothing prevents us from discussing the proposal in your draft even if it 
is not a WG draft.
 
But, again, the purpose of this whole thing has to fix whatever text that 
needs to be fixed in existing specifications.
 
Regards,
 
Christer

使用新一代 Windows Live Messenger 轻松交流和共享！ 立刻下载！ 

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