Hi,
We use OPTIIONS as heart beat message as well.
Here we check where the other entities are active or alive as well.
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO.,LTD. huawei_logo
Address: Bangalore
ATP
Ariport Road
E-mail: shya...@huawei.com
www.huawei.com
--
Olle E. Johansson wrote:
> 6 aug 2009 kl. 12.49 skrev Vivek Batra:
>
Greetings,
I am wondering if the below scenario is valid or not.
<-- 183 (with SDP) then,
<-- 180 (without SDP)
>>> Yes it's.
>>> However it depends in UAC behaviour on how to render it to the human
>>>
I just saw this thread. Thanks Mikael for your response. Its the best
one available for this case, assuming (as the original poster has
confirmed) that this is all one dialog.
If there is early media flowing, you probably don't want to preempt it
with a generated ringback. But if there is no me
Thanks Sir :)
-Original Message-
From: Abhishek Dhammawat [mailto:abhishek.dhamma...@aricent.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 7:25 PM
To: Manoj Priyankara [TG]; sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: RE: SIP OPTIONS
Hi
In my opinion OPTIONS should be used for querying the
Hi
In my opinion OPTIONS should be used for querying the capability of the peer
user agent and not as keep alive mechanism. For established dialog
(specifically two-party call) session timer is one option for checking that UAS
is alive or not.
There are two more keep-alive techniques mentioned
Dear All,
According to the RFC 3261, SIP OPRIONS message should be used to query
the statue of other UAC or the UAS. Is it OK to use the OPTIONS as a
keep alive message to know whether the UAS is alive?
Is it necessary to send the OPTIONS message from a registered user or is
it possible to send t
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 05:27:10PM +0530, Abhishek Dhammawat wrote:
> Hi
>
> In my opinion RBT(Ring Back Tone) should be played.
>
> regards
> Abhishek Dhammawat
>
Since nobody has mentioned RFC 3960 I thought it would be appropriate to
quote a portion of section 3.2[1].
With this in mind,
The caller SHOULD play ring back tone in this case (since he detects he is
getting no RTP packets from remote towards RBT).
Regards
Satya T
-Original Message-
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Migu
Hi
In my opinion RBT(Ring Back Tone) should be played.
regards
Abhishek Dhammawat
From: Miguel Oreilly [mailto:miguel.orei...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 5:20 PM
To: Abhishek Dhammawat
Cc: Iñaki Baz Castillo; sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
In addition to this;
Do you think there should be a RBT or no?
In the case that I am investigating there is no RBT.
2009/8/6 Miguel Oreilly
> for clarification;
> 183 ( with SDP ) and 180 ( without SDP ) were coming from same UAS.
>
>
>
> 2009/8/6 Abhishek Dhammawat
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I would requ
for clarification;
183 ( with SDP ) and 180 ( without SDP ) were coming from same UAS.
2009/8/6 Abhishek Dhammawat
> Hi
>
> I would request you not to remove the original question from the mail chain
> for better understanding of the issue I am putting the question by Miguel
> orielly again
>
>
2009/8/6 Abhishek Dhammawat :
> Hi
>
> I would request you not to remove the original question from the mail chain
> for better understanding of the issue I am putting the question by Miguel
> orielly again
>
>
> "I am wondering if the below scenario is valid or not.
>
> <-- 183 (with SDP) then,
Hi
I would request you not to remove the original question from the mail chain for
better understanding of the issue I am putting the question by Miguel orielly
again
"I am wondering if the below scenario is valid or not.
<-- 183 (with SDP) then,
<-- 180 (without SDP)
Thanks in advance,
M
2009/8/6 Olle E. Johansson :
> On a related topic. What should one do in this case?
>
> <--- 183 with sdp from UA 1
> (10 secs)
> <--- 183 with sdp from UA 2
> (5 secs)
> <--- 180 ringing from UA 3
> <--- 200 OK from UA 3
>
> From testing, different devices do very different things.
That is not s
6 aug 2009 kl. 12.49 skrev Vivek Batra:
>>> Greetings,
>>> I am wondering if the below scenario is valid or not.
>>>
>>> <-- 183 (with SDP) then,
>>> <-- 180 (without SDP)
>>
>> Yes it's.
>> However it depends in UAC behaviour on how to render it to the human
>> (it could choose to render the ear
6 aug 2009 kl. 12.53 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
> 2009/8/6 Abhishek Dhammawat :
>> The below is valid scenario.
>>
>> Also RFC 3261 section 13.2.1 mentions
>>
>> "The UAC MUST treat the first session description it receives as
>> the answer,
>> and MUST ignore any session descriptions in subsequ
2009/8/6 Abhishek Dhammawat :
> The below is valid scenario.
>
> Also RFC 3261 section 13.2.1 mentions
>
> "The UAC MUST treat the first session description it receives as the answer,
> and MUST ignore any session descriptions in subsequent responses to the
> initial INVITE."
This is fully incor
2009/8/6 Vivek Batra :
> [Vivek] - With some ITSP's, 183 Session Progress is sent (with SDP) to play
> the music (something like, please wait while your call is on wait) when
> actual called party is busy. However, 180 Ringing is sent as soon as call
> has been placed to called party and called par
Hi
The below is valid scenario.
Also RFC 3261 section 13.2.1 mentions
"The UAC MUST treat the first session description it receives as the answer,
and MUST ignore any session descriptions in subsequent responses to the
initial INVITE."
[Vivek] - But that is not the case since 180 Ringing has n
>> Greetings,
>> I am wondering if the below scenario is valid or not.
>>
>> <-- 183 (with SDP) then,
>> <-- 180 (without SDP)
>
> Yes it's.
> However it depends in UAC behaviour on how to render it to the human
> (it could choose to render the early-media comming from the same 183,
> or it could c
Hi
The below is valid scenario.
Also RFC 3261 section 13.2.1 mentions
"The UAC MUST treat the first session description it receives as the answer,
and MUST ignore any session descriptions in subsequent responses to the initial
INVITE."
regards
Abhishek Dhammawat
Aricent
-Original Message-
6 aug 2009 kl. 12.07 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
> 2009/8/6 Miguel Oreilly :
>> Greetings,
>> I am wondering if the below scenario is valid or not.
>>
>> <-- 183 (with SDP) then,
>> <-- 180 (without SDP)
>
> Yes it's.
> However it depends in UAC behaviour on how to render it to the human
> (it coul
2009/8/6 Miguel Oreilly :
> Greetings,
> I am wondering if the below scenario is valid or not.
>
> <-- 183 (with SDP) then,
> <-- 180 (without SDP)
Yes it's.
However it depends in UAC behaviour on how to render it to the human
(it could choose to render the early-media comming from the same 183,
o
Greetings,
I am wondering if the below scenario is valid or not.
<-- 183 (with SDP) then,
<-- 180 (without SDP)
Thanks in advance,
Miguel
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslist
Hi,
P-Asserted-Identity is "trusted", but keep in mind that
P-Preferred-Identity is ""untrusted" because it is used
between UA and SIP Proxy, not between proxies.
It is used in order to point (suggest) which of the trusted
identities the UA would like to use through out the trusted domain.
Kind r
25 matches
Mail list logo
