I guess Sip Stack should also have a check of lr parameter.
On 4/3/08, Robert Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The section in RFC3261 on strict routing fixup explains this situation.
> The disconnect you have is that you're doing the fixup and _then_
> trying to figure out where to send the
From: Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Consider the following:
From: PaulKyzivat
From: "PaulKyzivat"
I can certainly imagine that a stack might receive either of these, and
convert into some internal form that is identical for both. Then when
generating a new request it
Dear all,
Let me introduce a question to the list. Your help will be greatly
appreciated!
XML documents that are managed via XCAP means typically fall into a
well-known XCAP Application Usage. Typically, each XCAP Application
Usage may declare a default XML namespace. XML documents within suc
Dear all,
Let me introduce a question to the list. Your help will be greatly
appreciated!
XML documents that are managed via XCAP means typically fall into a
well-known XCAP Application Usage. Typically, each XCAP Application
Usage may declare a default XML namespace. XML documents within suc
Registration for this SIPit closes this Friday (April 4).
If you've been waiting for the deadline to register - this is it.
RjS
SIPit 22 will be hosted by the University of New Hampshire
Interoperability Laboratory
April 14 through 18, 2008.
Registration is $350 (USD) per person.
El Thursday 03 April 2008 04:43:01 Senthil-Raja C. escribió:
> Hello All,
>
> I am trying to develop a SIP implementation framework to enable a UAC to
> receive confirmation if the MESSAGE is actually read by the User. RFC
> 3428 doesn't supports this. Is it possible that UAC uses the Event
> heade
The section in RFC3261 on strict routing fixup explains this situation.
The disconnect you have is that you're doing the fixup and _then_
trying to figure out where to send the message.
RFC3261 says figure out where to send the message and _then_ to do the
fixup if the next hop is a strict rout
Hello All,
I am trying to develop a SIP implementation framework to enable a UAC to
receive confirmation if the MESSAGE is actually read by the User. RFC
3428 doesn't supports this. Is it possible that UAC uses the Event
header of SUBSCRIBE method for requesting the UAS to send NOTIFY when
the use
Hi Bharat,
Thanks for the reply. I understand somewhat strict routing rule but what
is confusing me is:
ua1 - proxy1 proxy2 proxy3 proxy4 - ua2
At ua1 the route set is
,,,
When ua1 want to send request, for example BYE, it will check the first
URI in the route set. Since it is a strict route,
Brett,
Consider the following:
From: PaulKyzivat
From: "PaulKyzivat"
I can certainly imagine that a stack might receive either of these, and
convert into some internal form that is identical for both. Then when
generating a new request it might re-encode it using a different form
than it re
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-imdn-07.txt
On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Senthil-Raja C. wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I am trying to develop a SIP implementation framework to enable a
> UAC to
> receive confirmation if the MESSAGE is actually read by the User. RFC
> 3428 doesn'
> I don't see anything in the material you quote
> that says whether or not the quoted diversion
> and the unquoted diversion mean the same thing.
> They are both reasons, but are they the same reason?
> In this context it seems probable that they
> ought to mean the same thing, but its not en
Avasarala Ranjit-A20990 wrote:
>
> Hi Paul
>
> Below is the semantics for the diversion header from the draft
>
> The syntax of the Diversion header is:
>
> Diversion = "Diversion" ":" 1# (name-addr *( ";" diversion_params ))
> diversion-params = diversion-reason | diversion-counter
Hi
Yes its true that nothing has been defined for both the strings (quoted
and non quoted) to be equal. But usually the SIP parsers are lenient to
allow both the cases as correct.
Regards
Ranjit
-Original Message-
From: Brett Tate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 20
Thanks for the responses. Replies inline.
> So by this it means that "deflection" and deflection
> (without quotes) mean the same.
It depends upon what two things you are considering.
The shown deflection within the ABNF does not indicate the use of
quotes; thus the quotes are not shown withi
Hi All,
I have got a question about PRACK.
What is the behavior, if a PRACK contains multiple RAck headers?
Can it be treated as a Stray Message and continue retransmitting the RPR (18x)?
Any other suggestions/clarifications?
Regards,
Kavitha.
"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricen
Hi All,
What is the behavior, if 18x contains an invalid RSeq?
Invalid RSeq:
Sending Multiple RSeq headers.
RSeq with the value of 0
How the message should be handled? Can it be treated as an Unreliable
Provisional Response?
Thanks & Regards,
Kavitha.
"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprieta
17 matches
Mail list logo
