Hi All,
I have a question regarding Warning header.
Here is a quote from rfc 3261.
Warning codes provide information supplemental to the status code in
SIP response messages when the failure of the transaction results
from a Session Description Protocol (SDP) (RFC 2327 [1]) problem.
Can
Sumin,
Just a thought. RFC 3261 does not impose restricitons on the
Reason-Phrase in the Status line of the SIP Response
In that case you can use that itself.
Ex:
504 SDP error .
The contents within can be chosen according to your need.
Ofcourse for this to be useful anywhere, the UA needs to
Hi, when I receive an INVITE from my provider SIP_PSTN gateway I do a lookup
in my internal ENUM.
If the E164 number is mapped to a local SIP user (client of mine) I look for
it in the location server.
If the user is registered I forwad the INVITE and so... all OK.
The problem is in the case
Hi Christina,
I think you are asking what should we do if want could not accept the SDP
offer in following delay media case.
SWITCH ENDPOINT
- Invite w/o SDP
- Reliable 18x w/SDP offer
- PRACK w/SDP answer
- Cancel the call
I prefer to cancel the call using Cancel message.
Thanks,
Ryan
Hi Castillo,
My two cents. As the provider I would not play early media for 404 case
since I know the PSTN provider will do it. It should be possible to identify
this special case in the coding level.
Thanks,
Ryan
--
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Paul,
I think she is querying what the UAC will react to the 180 ring message
with a SDP offer. As we know, if the initial invite contains the SDP
offer, then the first 18x reliable provisionable response could carry
the answer. This 1st 18x could be the 183
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
El Tuesday 04 March 2008 17:02:25 Paul Kyzivat escribió:
If you mean the callee isn't registered in the sip sense, because the
phone isn't connected, but you know the number is assigned to someone,
then IMO 404 is not the right response.
Yes, I completely agree with that.
A better response
A UAS should not in general know whether it has been called by a gateway
or some other sip device. And so it should not be adjusting its
responses based on the kind of thing it thinks is calling.
The response returned by the UAS should best reflect the condition at
the UAS. The purpose of
Thanks Harsha.
My first question is about the purpose of Warning header.
Can I user this Warning header only for specifying SDP related information?
Instead of Reason-Phrase, I want more systematic way. I want to assign
warning code to each case and based on that warning code, our cutomized UA
Thanks paul!
Now what I am concerned with is: why in this case, the 180 Ringing is
not permitted to carry SDP? Based on what kind of consideration? Thanks!
Alex Zhang
ESN: 6-554-8782
-Original Message-
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008
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
From: Attila Sipos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What if you are using something like DNS SRV to route to a
group of gateways? How can one ensure all new requests go the
same gateway?
Why would you want to?
Maybe I wasn't clear.
I want all the overlapped dialling related
Thanks Ryan, Paul and Alex,
Yes, I think PRACK with a SDP answer can give a graceful reply for the SDP
offer of an 18x reliable provisional response. For it still in early state
the call can be take down by CANCEL.
For Alex's concern, I think in the same dialog, any attibute to be updated
by a
SIPit 22 registration closes April 4. Please note that we have
limited space this time - early registration is recommended.
Now's a good time to finalize travel plans if you haven't already
done so.
RjS
On Jan 30, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
SIPit 22 will be hosted by the
Hi ALL,
Can anyone please let me know is there any scenario wherein it will be
required that Subscriber makes a call to himself?
is there any RFC/draft saying something regarding this?
IF such scenario happen what should be the correct behavior of proxy?
Your help is appreciated.
Thanks in
update!
Thanks Ryan, Paul and Alex,
Yes, I think to use PRACK with a SDP answer which can give a graceful reply
for the SDP offer of an 18x reliable provisional response. For this time the
call is still in early state and can be take down by CANCEL.
For Alex's concern, I think in the same
Hello Narasingha,
I am not aware of any text within the 3GPP IMS specifications
preventing this case, however as you know, the 3GPP specs strongly
leverage the IEFT SIP documents.
Cheers,
Lincoln
narasingha pattnaik wrote:
Hi ALL,
Can anyone please let me know is there any scenario
18 matches
Mail list logo
