Hi,
Yes good solution. In this case SDP of 200 OK to the INVITE should be
treated as Offer3 not Answer.
Regards,
Karthic
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
geeta soragavi
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 10:22 AM
To: santoshkumar pati; sip-
Hi,
To my understanding ,
In the scenario mentioned by you.
INVITE (Offer1)
18x(Answer1)
UPDATE (Offer2)
2xx UPDATE (Answer2)
2xx INVITE (Offer3) /* This will be a new offer
again */
ACK INVITE (Answer3)
So an answer for offer3 needs to be sent in ACK.
Regards,
Ge
I thnink UAC must complete INVITE transaction first. If UAC is behaving like
this then, UAS should delete dialog and uncompleted RE-INVITE transaction.
-
vipul
- Original Message -
From: "vinodh kumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Robert Sparks'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, Febr
There is no condition that BYE should be only sent after completing Invite
transaction.
Vinodh
-Original Message-
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:26 PM
To: vinodh kumar
Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-impleme
A can send the BYE at any time. It hasn't done anything wrong by
sending the BYE.
Sending the BYE does not relieve it of the duty of sending an ACK to
the 200 however.
RjS
On Feb 14, 2008, at 3:40 PM, vinodh kumar wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have interesting case.
>
> Call is established between
Hi all,
I have interesting case.
Call is established between user A and user B.
Now user User A sends Re-invite to user B who responds with 200 OK.
200 OK reaches User A, but User A tries to terminate the call and sends BYE
without sending ACK.
Is this a valid behavior? If this is valid behavio
From: "Prakash Mariasusai, TLS-Chennai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An UAS, on receiving an INVITE, sends a TCP packet containing two SIP
responses in ONE Packet. Here the first SIP Response has a PARSE error,
while the SECOND SIP Response contains a valid SIP Response.
Note that in the fi
On Feb 14, 2008, at 10:01 AM, Hagai Sela wrote:
> Hi,
> I have the following scenario:
>
> a UAC sends an INVITE
> the UAS sends 100
> the UAS sends 183 with a to-tag
> the UAC sends CANCEL
> the UAS sends 200 OK for the CANCEL
> the UAS sends 487 on the INVITE.
>
El Thursday 14 February 2008 17:01:28 Hagai Sela escribió:
> Hi,
> I have the following scenario:
>
> a UAC sends an INVITE
> the UAS sends 100
> the UAS sends 183 with a to-tag
> the UAC sends CANCEL
> the UAS sends 200 OK for the CANCEL
> the UAS sends 487 on the INVITE.
>
> Should the 487 respon
If I remember correctly, the text has the UAS put a to-tag on non-200
final responses to INVITE.
Its not used for anything though - a UAC certainly shouldn't get
upset about it not being there.
RjS
On Feb 14, 2008, at 10:01 AM, Hagai Sela wrote:
> Hi,
> I have the following scenario:
>
> a U
Hi,
Pls see comments inline:
-- regards
Hul
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Karthikeyan Gopal , TLS-Chennai <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> In SIP outbound draft 11 it was mentioned that flow back to particular
> UA can be Identified based on instance-id and reg-id.
>
[Hb] I don
Hi,
I have the following scenario:
a UAC sends an INVITE
the UAS sends 100
the UAS sends 183 with a to-tag
the UAC sends CANCEL
the UAS sends 200 OK for the CANCEL
the UAS sends 487 on the INVITE.
Should the 487 response have a to-tag? what should the UAC do if there
is no to-tag present?
Tha
TCP packetization is entirely irrelevant to SIP. The messages are
extracted from the stream on a byte-by-byte basis and processed
independently. As long as message (a) is correctly *framed*, problems
with it should not result in (b) being ignored.
BUT, framing of SIP messages in TCP is tricky.
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 18:46 +0530, Prakash Mariasusai, TLS-Chennai
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We would like to know the behavior of s SIP Client in the below error
> scenario:
>
> An UAS, on receiving an INVITE, sends a TCP packet containing two SIP
> responses in ONE Packet. Here the first SIP Response h
Hi,
We would like to know the behavior of s SIP Client in the below error
scenario:
An UAS, on receiving an INVITE, sends a TCP packet containing two SIP
responses in ONE Packet. Here the first SIP Response has a PARSE error,
while the SECOND SIP Response contains a valid SIP Response.
Note tha
Hi All,
Can U please Tell me What are the other message Bodies
except SDP are supported in SIP..
Santosh
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Vikas Jayaprakash <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the case when UE sends a MSRP SEND with Failure-Report Header having
> value NO to the Re
Hi,
In the case when UE sends a MSRP SEND with Failure-Report Header having
value NO to the Relay, I think response to SEND is mandatory, however in
case of negative response from Term Relay/UE, sending REPORT back to Orig UE
is not required.
Can anyone also confirm about the same.
Thanks & Re
Hi All,
How to identify edge-proxy in this topology?
UA - P1 - P2 - P3 - REGISTRAR
Here in this case P1 and P3 are Edge proxy's as per Path header RFC
3327.
Edge proxy P1 can be identified based on VIA.
Then how to edge proxy identify P3?
Thanks & Regards,
Karthikeyan.
Hi All,
In SIP outbound draft 11 it was mentioned that flow back to
particular UA can be Identified based on instance-id and reg-id.
Then what is the need for flow-token.
Is this flow-token is used only in case of edge-proxy support?
If it is so what is the need of instance-id in case of e
19 matches
Mail list logo
