RE: Re: psychic early media behavior
Ejzak, Richard P (Richard <ejzak <at> lucent.com>
2006-07-02 16:54:02 GMT
I'm sorry, but your proposal will not work, besides being unacceptable to TISPAN. The UAC and network
cannot guarantee in advance to the UAS that early media will be rendered. See RFC 3960 for known cases where
this cannot happen.
The problem is that the existing RFCs that Paul referenced have requirements that cannot always be met.
That is the crux of our disagreement.
Your scheme attempts to prohibit a UAC/network from denying early media unless the UAS supports the
extension and allows it. Early media denial already occurs in some cases according to existing RFCs, and
whether or not it occurs is not always known when the UAC issues its request, so this approach will just
cause more problems with existing RFCs than it solves.
The cat's already out of the bag and you're not going to be able to put it back in.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale.Worley <at> comcast.net [mailto:Dale.Worley <at> comcast.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 11:11 AM
> To: sipping <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Sipping] Re: psychic early media behavior
> From: "Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" <mhammer <at> cisco.com>
> However, what I don't see is the case where it is the UAS that is
> the one that requires the sending of early media vice the requestor
> needing it. It would be good to cover that case, as I suspect that
> might occur more often. Thus, discussion of inserting/modifying