Hi,
I have the following query with regard to MD5-Sess algorithm based
authentication defined in RFC 2617 and suggested for usage in RFC
3261.
The code given for computation of H(A1) in RFC 2617 is as below:
/* calculate H(A1) as per spec */
void DigestCalcHA1(
IN char * pszAlg,
IN char * pszUser
Inline comment.
Vipul Rastogi
Engineer, Business Management Team
Telecommunication Network Business
Samsung Electronics CO, LTD
Suwon P.O.BOX 105, 416
Korea 442-600
MO 010-9530-0354
- Original Message -
From: "vinodh kumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1
Inline
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of vinodh kumar
>Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:33 AM
>To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>Subject: [Sip-implementors] Blind transfer using REFER
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>I have query rega
IMO, when User 2 disconnects after transferring the call, from the user
perspective it leaves the former calls, while it is not involved at all in
the transferred call. From the signaling perspective, when disconnecting
(after REFERring the first call) it sends a BYE closing the first call. The
tra
If B makes forceful exit before C answers, why will it affect the
transfer? The call is getting established between A and C, B can exit
anytime just after sending REFER request.
If REFER is being sent as part of A and B dialog, it should at least
take care that it has received response for REFER be
Sending provisional response to a non-invite client transaction does
not stop re-transmission. See section 17.1.2.1 Overview of the
non-INVITE Transaction of RFC 3261.
On Nov 27, 2007 3:12 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > During a call-flow, my A-party is sending a BYE to a SIP-proxy, and now
>
>From the user perspective I feel that User 2 has transferred the call , he
gets the message transferring, now he disconnects the call.
There are two ways it can be taken.
1. To cancel the transfer he drops the call, but it does not make sense in
blind transfer.
2. He thinks transfer is comp
It seems that we have different implementation, not sure whether this way of
implementing is correct or not.
But still my question remain unanswered for the scenario I have asked for.
_
From: V Belagodu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:50 AM
To: vinodh k
B sends a REFER to switch with a Refer-to header with C's contact. Switch
acknowledges the REFER with a 202 and softswitch sends a NOTIFY along with a
BYE. The scenario i saw was, B never sends a BYE, the softswitch sends the
BYE.
As soon as the switch sends a 202, it creates a new INV and sends i
From: "vinodh kumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ideally what should happen when User 2 disconnect the call, should it send
out CANCEL message to User 3 so that he stops ringing and User 2 will unhold
User 1 and continue talking with him. Or User 3 goes on ringing and when he
picks he shoul
After B sends out REFER to C, switch makes a call to C and let B know the
status by sending Notify for 180 ringing and 200 OK.
After receiving Notify having SipFrag as 200 OK, B sends BYE. Till C
answers the call state would be transffering and once C answers the call it
would be transfer comple
- A calls B
- B transfers to C
- C picks up calls from A
- A and C are in a media session
When B transfers to C, it sends a REFER message out, as soon as it receives
a 202 Accepted, it sends out a BYE. Notify goes out from the softswitch to
the C and A, the call gets setup.
I never en
Hi all,
I have query regarding blind transfer initiated using REFER method.
I have User 1 calling User 2. User 2 attends the call and does blind
transfer to User 3. Now before User 3 answers the call User 2 disconnects
the call.
So here User 2 sends BYE before he gets NOTIFY for the REFER.
Ide
Perhaps you can have a look at RFC4320/4321, issues related to non-invite
transactions.
Regards,
Nadine.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: dinsdag 27 november 2007 10:43
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: sip-implementors@
> During a call-flow, my A-party is sending a BYE to a SIP-proxy, and now
> I am wondering, if it is possible (allowed in rfc3261) to send a
> provisional response (like 100 TRYING) to the A-party.
RFC3261 has a SHOULD NOT clause at this behaviour (§16.2): "Thus, a
stateful proxy SHOULD NOT genera
Hi!
During a call-flow, my A-party is sending a BYE to a SIP-proxy, and now
I am wondering, if it is possible (allowed in rfc3261) to send a
provisional response (like 100 TRYING) to the A-party.
The background is, that due to the complexity of the SUT, the server
needs a second to forward the
16 matches
Mail list logo
