Subject: [Sipping] "draft-gaoyang-sipping-session-state-criterion-01"

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:15:32 +0800

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.

New version URL: 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gaoyang-sipping-session-state-criterion-01.txt

The method in this draft is violation free (of current RFCs) and racing 
condition free.

Though this draft is after the passionate discussion during 2008. But if 
it can solve all the problem elegantly and with out any extension and 
violation, why not choose this one?

To analyse incorrectness and drawback of other methods bypass the session 
state, another draft has been posted:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gaoyang-sipping-session-state-analysis-01.txt

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