Hi,
>Correct. It is entirely possible to do 3pcc without INVITE. However,
>the phone must support out of dialog REFER. This poses a security risk
>which can be mitigated by authentication of the REFER.
I don't see why REFER can't do following.
*) Target phone gets REFER and rings
*) Phone displa
Prevedini Paolo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> What is the difference between the expire header value in the INVITE
> message and C timer
Af far as I know Timer C should be used by SIP proxy, while Expire
header is intended for the final UAS to notify it about time constrains.
I don't think those two a
I think you can look at ParlayX web services which can be used with SIP
Somesh
* Please donot take the print out of this e-mail unless its absolutely
necessary *
-Original Message-
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.e
I do NOT think you need handle expires header in provisional resp,
The meaning of expires header is not well-defined.
And RFC3261 does not say you need update C timer based on expires
header.
In sec 20.19, it just say
The expiration time in an INVITE does not affect the duration of the
actual s
Hello...
Does anybody know about works or projects where is studied and/or developed the
communication between SIP and XML technologies found in Web Services? I'm
working in this area, especifically in the applicaction layer of IMS, and I
would like to know if you have any knowledge about it.
T
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 12:08 +, Attila Sipos wrote:
> there is one disadvantage to RFC 4733.
> They have removed the hookflash (Flash) notification.
That seems very strange, given how common it is to use Flash as a
signaling trigger.
Dale
___
Sip-i
> 2009/1/28 Iñaki Baz Castillo :
> > Hi, that's not necessary at all as it's already documented
> > in the same RFC 3515 (REFER method):
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3515#section-4.1
>
> And it's also fully explained and documented in RFC 5359
> "Session Initiation Protocol Service Exa
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Avasarala Ranjit-A20990
wrote:
> So based on this, now which would be the recommended approach for realizing a
> Click2Dial application? Using a B2BUA (3PCC) as explained in 3725 or the
> refer example in 5359?
>
>
Depends upon whether the endpoint supports RE
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2009/1/28 Iñaki Baz Castillo :
>> Hi, that's not necessary at all as it's already documented in the same
>> RFC 3515 (REFER method):
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3515#section-4.1
>
> And it's also fully explained and documented
So based on this, now which would be the recommended approach for realizing a
Click2Dial application? Using a B2BUA (3PCC) as explained in 3725 or the refer
example in 5359?
Regards
Ranjit
-Original Message-
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:sip-implementor
2009/1/28 Iñaki Baz Castillo :
> Hi, that's not necessary at all as it's already documented in the same
> RFC 3515 (REFER method):
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3515#section-4.1
And it's also fully explained and documented in RFC 5359 "Session
Initiation Protocol Service Examples":
http://
2009/1/28 Brett Tate :
>> So is there any plan to revise the RFC 3725 based on REFER?
>
> RFC 3725 indicates the following:
> "This document serves as a best current practice for implementing third party
> call control without usage of any extensions specifically designed for that
> purpose."
>
>
> So is there any plan to revise the RFC 3725 based on REFER?
RFC 3725 indicates the following:
"This document serves as a best current practice for implementing third party
call control without usage of any extensions specifically designed for that
purpose."
Because of the above text, I doubt
2009/1/28 Avasarala Ranjit-A20990 :
> So is there any plan to revise the RFC 3725 based on REFER?
Sincerely I don't think so.
However what I mean is that RFC 3725 is not needed is we use REFER
initial-request (the problem is that common phones don't allow REFER
initial-request).
--
Iñaki Baz Ca
So is there any plan to revise the RFC 3725 based on REFER?
thanks
Regards
Ranjit
-Original Message-
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Victor
Pascual Ávila
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:53 P
2009/1/28 Iñaki Baz Castillo :
>> We chose not using the REFER basically 'cause, at that moment, REFER
>> was not implemented in many UAs. However, the 72% of the UAs tested
>> during the last SIPit implemented the REFER method.
>
> IMHO if a UA doesn't support REFER method you can drop it. If we w
2009/1/28 Victor Pascual Ávila :
>> - The web server generates an INVITE which arrives to Alice's phone and so...
>
> The B2BUA generates the initial invite (no SDP) towards Alice; Alice
> sends a 200 OK (SDP1)
> The B2BUA generates an invite (SDP1) towards Bob; Bob sends a 200 OK
> (SDP2); B2BUA
Hi all,
What is the difference between the expire header value in the INVITE
message and C timer?
In an early media session, should an UAC refresh the expire header value
after receiving a provisional response (i.e. 183 Session Progress)?
Thanks a lot,
Paolo
Internet Email Confidentiali
Hi Iñaki,
in my scenario it works as follows.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Hi, RFC 3725 "Best Current Practices for Third Party Call Control
> (3pcc) in SIP" defines a way to create third party calls by sending an
> INVITE to both, the caller and the callee.
>
> I
Hi, RFC 3725 "Best Current Practices for Third Party Call Control
(3pcc) in SIP" defines a way to create third party calls by sending an
INVITE to both, the caller and the callee.
I don't like it at all, it seems not ellegant hack IMHO:
- Alice uses a Click2Dial web page to call Bob.
- The web se
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Govardhana Sankanna Nagendraprasad
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>What should be the behavior of UAS upon receiving a INVITE request
> with a timer option in the supported header, a valid Session-Expires value
> and a Min-SE with a value lower than the configured va
Hi All,
What should be the behavior of UAS upon receiving a INVITE request with
a timer option in the supported header, a valid Session-Expires value and a
Min-SE with a value lower than the configured value of UAS.
UAC INVITE with x:120 and Min-SE: 90 -> UAS ( Configur
there is one disadvantage to RFC 4733.
They have removed the hookflash (Flash) notification.
In RFC2833 Flash was in Table 1:
Event encoding (decimal)
_
0--90--9
*
23 matches
Mail list logo
