The Criterion of Session State
draft-gaoyang-sipping-session-state-criterion-03
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Gao yang | ||
| Last updated | 2009-03-06 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
There is debate on the topic of "Commit/Rollback of Offer/Answer on Unsuccessful re-INVITE". The reason of the confusion is some application/session usages of offer/answer imply the nest transaction(mean transaction theory, not mean sip transaction) concept, but whitout unambiguous definition. This paper reveal the concept of nest transactions in current RFC and other well known application/session usages. And then clarify that there is no ambiguous state of session modification using current RFC definition.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)