Dear All,
Thanks a lot for your inputs.
Vinay Murudi
Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.
Bangalooru - 560008
This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI,
which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed
above. Any use of the information contai
From: "Pandurangan R S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In case the proxy receives a SUBSCRIBE (with the request uri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] the proxy is responsible for this domain)
for an Event that it does *not* understand, should it
a) Reject the SUBSCRIBE with 489 - Bad Event OR
b) Forward th
Attila Sipos wrote:
>>> it is not comparable to forking scenario.
>
> As I tried to explain in my e-mail, a UAS can do forking by itself
> if it sends different to tags in its responses.
> Though not usual, it is perfectly valid.
>
> If the UAS sent these 2 responses without different to tags,
Pandurangan R S wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> In case the proxy receives a SUBSCRIBE (with the request uri
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] the proxy is responsible for this domain)
> for an Event that it does *not* understand, should it
> a) Reject the SUBSCRIBE with 489 - Bad Event OR
> b) Forward the
Since the SDPs are the same, I assume that the responses are from the
same UAS, and carry the same to-tag. You didn't say if the responses
were reliable provisionals, so I will assume they were not. (The answer
is different if they are.)
In that case the answer is that this is entirely legal.
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 16:35 +0530, Pandurangan R S wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> In case the proxy receives a SUBSCRIBE (with the request uri
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] the proxy is responsible for this domain)
> for an Event that it does *not* understand, should it
> a) Reject the SUBSCRIBE with 48
>>it is not comparable to forking scenario.
As I tried to explain in my e-mail, a UAS can do forking by itself
if it sends different to tags in its responses.
Though not usual, it is perfectly valid.
If the UAS sent these 2 responses without different to tags,
then the UAS is behaving wrongly.
R
Inline ...
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Attila Sipos
>Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 6:34 AM
>To: Brocha Strous; sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] 180 with body AFTER 183 with
>body - is i
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 10:34 +, Attila Sipos wrote:
> it is ok because this is what happens in forking scenarios.
>
> >>It seems that some UAC's in this case end up hearing a double
> >>ring (one real one from the media stream and one locally generated.
> >>Is the UAS doing something wrong or U
Thanks for the reply.
In case the proxy receives a SUBSCRIBE (with the request uri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] the proxy is responsible for this domain)
for an Event that it does *not* understand, should it
a) Reject the SUBSCRIBE with 489 - Bad Event OR
b) Forward the SUBSCRIBE to the registered contact ad
it is ok because this is what happens in forking scenarios.
>>It seems that some UAC's in this case end up hearing a double
>>ring (one real one from the media stream and one locally generated.
>>Is the UAS doing something wrong or UAC?
The UAC is wrong here.
It should either be listening to the
Is it allowed for a UAS to send first a 183 with an SDP and then send a
180 also with an SDP (same as the 183)?
It seems that some UAC's in this case end up hearing a double ring (one
real one from the media stream and one locally generated. Is the UAS
doing something wrong or UAC?
Thanks,
Are namespaces just a way to group together different
users across different DNS domains?
What if a.com is using namespaces "dsn-00" to "dsn-09"
and b.com is using the same namespaces?
Then if [EMAIL PROTECTED] calls [EMAIL PROTECTED], wouldn't the namespaces
interfere?
What looks aft
13 matches
Mail list logo
