Re: [Sip-implementors] SIP Reject codes: Why draft-worley-6xx-considered-harmful (441 Decline) is still a draft?
El Wednesday 05 March 2008 05:29:25 [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Personally I don't understant why 486 User Busy is used for rejecting a call. One reason is to reject the call without returning to the caller an explicit indication that the call has been rejected by the callee. Before the user presses Reject and its phone replies a 486, the phone sent a 180 Ringing so the caller does know it has been explicitely rejected by the callee, doesn't it? Thanks. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
Re: [Sip-implementors] SIP Reject codes: Why draft-worley-6xx-considered-harmful (441 Decline) is still a draft?
The choice of which response to generate to reject a call is a conscious decision on the part of the implementer depending on how he wants the rejection to be perceived by the caller. A 486 is used when the *goal* is for the caller to be informed that the callee is busy. A 480 can be used so that the caller will think the callee isn't there. And a 603 is used to signal an explicit rejection. (It also, arguably, terminates any other forks, which may be a desirable feature for the callee.) Its not hard to imagine a phone with buttons for all three of these. Paul Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: Hi, SIP response codes for rejecting a call is a pain, each implementator does a different thing. RFC 3261 doesn't help a lot with the ambiguity of 480/486/603 codes. In fact, when the user rejects explicitely a call (by pressing Reject button) some UA's generate a 480 Temporarily Unavailable (as SJphone, Thomson S2030), others generate a 486 Busy Here (as X-Lite, Siemens), and others a 603 Decline (as Twinkle). Personally I don't understant why 486 User Busy is used for rejecting a call. Also, the use of 6XX is not good since the UAS cancels the other ringing UAS (in case of parallel forking) what it's not good in many cases. So there is a draft [1] suggesting the use of 441 Decline. IMHO this MUST exist in the original RFC 3261. The absence of it has generated the actuall situation in which each implementator rejects a call in a different way. So... why this draft is still a draft? draft-worley-6xx-considered-harmful http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-worley-6xx-considered-harmful-00 Thanks for any explanation. ___ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
Re: [Sip-implementors] SIP Reject codes: Why draft-worley-6xx-considered-harmful (441 Decline) is still a draft?
From: =?utf-8?q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, SIP response codes for rejecting a call is a pain, each implementator does a different thing. RFC 3261 doesn't help a lot with the ambiguity of 480/486/603 codes. It is true that the various error codes are not clearly defined. In fact, when the user rejects explicitely a call (by pressing Reject button) some UA's generate a 480 Temporarily Unavailable (as SJphone, Thomson S2030), others generate a 486 Busy Here (as X-Lite, Siemens), and others a 603 Decline (as Twinkle). Personally I don't understant why 486 User Busy is used for rejecting a call. One reason is to reject the call without returning to the caller an explicit indication that the call has been rejected by the callee. Also, the use of 6XX is not good since the UAS cancels the other ringing UAS (in case of parallel forking) what it's not good in many cases. That is the point of the draft -- that 6xx codes are harmful and should all be replaced by 4xx codes. That is independent of the the fact that many of the codes are poorly defined. So there is a draft [1] suggesting the use of 441 Decline. IMHO this MUST exist in the original RFC 3261. Sadly, it does not exist in RFC 3261. Dale ___ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
