I don't know if sending 487 after 180 is good idea. I have seen following in
few places ...
* In case of early-dialog, send REFER without replaces. After all second call
(as well as first) will be terminated with hang-up of Transferor (After sending
REFER).
* In case of confirmed dialog, send R
-Original Message-
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of
sip-implementors-requ...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:05 AM
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Sip-impleme
Hi to all SIPers,
>I think my question is simple, if A sends an INVITE to a B passing the INVITE
>of course from a proxy or BBUA.. Whatthe proxy should return to A if B
>response is 300 Multiple Choices with 2 >Contacts?Should the proxy notify A
>for trying to connect him somewhere? If he don't
Purpose of 100 Trying is to stop retransmission on INVITE, which means
that once UAC receives 100 trying then it can be sure that next hop has
received the message. Since next hop may not be consumer of INVITE,
hence To-tag is not mandatory (discouraged otherwise as well).
-Original Message
Hi,
Can any one clarify what does the below statement convey. Does this mean if
UAS receives SUBSCRIBE without Accept header application should use the default
value of application/reginfo_xml.
RFC 3680 SECTION 4.5 NOTIFY Bodies
The subscribe request MAY contain an Accept header field. If
Thanks Vikram,
But is this mandatory as per the MUST clause of the section 21.4.16
then in table a it could be mentioned as m why it is mention as c
(conditional).
Because for other header's like allow header for the 405 response for bye,
invite and option and register request is mandatory.
Vikram/Vipul,
Regarding definition of Attendant Transfer, most of the Analog/ Digital PBX
allows you to perform the Attendant Transfer activity even when Transfer
Target is in ringing state. Analog/ Digital PBX does not (generally)
differentiate between Blind and Attendant Call Transfer. If Transf
I can not think of any reason why RFC did not allow replacement of
early dialog at the UAS. I can think of one more feature for this
case. For example, the caller wanted to initiate an audio session,
the called party did not respond in time and then the caller decided
to leave an instant message u
An example of service using "replacing the early dialog _initiated_ by
UA" could be a call-collect feature where the receiver does not want
the originator to be charged for the call, the receiver calls back the
originator. I could not think of service using "replacing the early
dialog _not_ initiat
El Miércoles, 6 de Mayo de 2009, Vikram Chhibber escribió:
> No. From the RFC 3891, it is clear that you can only replace early
> dialog which is initiated by the UA.
> In your scenario, how can you say it is attended-transfer when the
> transferor and
> transfer-target never had a conversation?
E
El Miércoles, 6 de Mayo de 2009, Paul Kyzivat escribió:
> Its also possible for the proxy to recurse on some of the alternatives,
> and then return a 300 containing some that it chose not to try itself.
> But an all-or-nothing approach by the proxy is much more likely.
I've not seen such a proxy i
Table 3 says:
Requirear- c - c c c
where
c: Conditional; requirements on the header field depend on the
context of the message.
In your case, 421 satisfy this conditional requirement. Thus, the
Require header may be present in respons
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Vivek Batra
wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I have one straight question may be I am not able to read between the words.
>
>
> As per RFC 3891 Section 3:
>
>
>
> If the Replaces header field matches an early dialog that was not
> initiated by this UA, it returns a 481 (Cal
Its also possible for the proxy to recurse on some of the alternatives,
and then return a 300 containing some that it chose not to try itself.
But an all-or-nothing approach by the proxy is much more likely.
Thanks,
Paul
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> El Miércoles, 6 de Mayo de 2009
2009/5/6 Vito Korleone :
> Hi to all SIPers,
> I think my question is simple, if A sends an INVITE to a B passing the INVITE
> of course from a proxy or BBUA.. Whatthe proxy should return to A if B
> response is 300 Multiple Choices with 2 Contacts?
The proxy can recurse over 300 response, see se
Hi all:
I'm implementing a stateful proxy, what do i have to use as the key of the
response context?
¡Obtén la mejor experiencia en la web! Descarga gratis el nuevo Internet
Explorer 8. http://downloads.yahoo.com/ieak8/?l=mx
___
Sip-implemento
El Miércoles, 6 de Mayo de 2009, Vito Korleone escribió:
> Hi to all SIPers,
> I think my question is simple, if A sends an INVITE to a B passing the
> INVITE of course from a proxy or BBUA.. Whatthe proxy should return to A if
> B response is 300 Multiple Choices with 2 Contacts?
When Proxy recei
Hi to all SIPers,
I think my question is simple, if A sends an INVITE to a B passing the INVITE
of course from a proxy or BBUA.. Whatthe proxy should return to A if B response
is 300 Multiple Choices with 2 Contacts?Should the proxy notify A for trying to
connect him somewhere? If he don't proba
2009/5/6 :
> Hi All,
>
> #1.
> Can an endpoint send "400 Bad Request" response after sending 1xx
> response. I think it should not.
> Please clarify on the same.
Yes it could. The UAS receives the request and inmediately replies 100
to stop retransmissions. After that, it does a better inspection
2009/5/6 Neel Balasubramanian :
> Reading Section 8.2.6.2, IMO, the To tag must be present in the response, if
> that is present on the request. So, on a Re-INVITE the 100 trying MUST have
> to tag.
>
> See section 8.2.6.2 Headers and Tags
>
> If a request contained a To tag in the request, t
Hi,
Thanks for response for the last query.
I have doubt about the table 3 uses. As per the section 21.4.16 421
Extension Required
The UAS needs a particular extension to process the request, but this
extension is not listed in a Supported header field in the request.
Hi All,
#1.
Can an endpoint send "400 Bad Request" response after sending 1xx
response. I think it should not.
Please clarify on the same.
OR
#2.
Can an UAC receive "400 Bad Request" final response after 1xx
provisional response.
Consider an example:
1xx response will be sent from the in
Thanks,
Neel.
> -Original Message-
> From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-
> implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Attila Sipos
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:39 AM
> To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: [Sip-implementors]
AFAIK, 100 Trying doesn't require a to-tag when responding to a
session-establishing INVITE.
This is because the dialog hasn't been established yet.
Is a to-tag required in the 100 Trying response to a re-INVITE?
It seems to me that it probably should be (since the dialog is now
established) bu
Good Point Vivek. Section clearly stated that for UAS to accept
early-dialog replaces (INVITE), it must be UAC for matched dialog. In
practical scenario, such UAS always remains UAS for matched dialog also.
I am confused too ..
-Original Message-
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.c
hi, all
I have implimented SRTP(RFC 4568 && RFC 3711) function in our stack.
Is there any free softphones suppoort this capability?
I want to do some tests.
thanks.
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https
would recommend you ask this question to
a...@ietf.org
-Original Message-
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of
Erez Morabia
Sent: 06 May 2009 04:41
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Si
27 matches
Mail list logo
