Few more questions:
The SIP outbound Draft says - while sending Non-REGISTER requests
"If the UAC cannot use one of the existing flows, then it SHOULD form a new
flow by sending a datagram or opening a new connection to the next hop, as
appropriate for the transport protocol."
1. As per this if w
"Also" header was proposed long back in some draft that never made up to RFC.
Now, it should me considered as an "Unknown" header and its presence
in SIP message
should not effect anything.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Shadab
Siddiqui wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to know the behavior of Also head
Hi,
I wanted to know the behavior of Also header, if it is passed in the
response SIP messages.
Is it valid to pass Also header in SIP responses? If yes, then what is its
significance.
Regards,
~
Shadab A. Siddiqui
___
Sip-implementors m
Hi
Please refer draft draft-levy-sip-diversion-08.txt for details regarding the
diversion header usage/syntax.
Path - http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-levy-sip-diversion-08.txt
Section 5 of the above draft defines the syntax as
The syntax of the Diversion header is:
Diversion = "Diversion" ":
Walter,
I have seen this format of Diversion at my core. Not sure if quotes are allowed,
Diversion: ;reason=no-answer;privacy=off;counter=3
Diversion: ;reason=no-answer;counter=3;privacy=off
RS
--- On Tue, 8/11/09, ZEGELS Walter wrote:
From: ZEGELS Walter
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Ques
To the best of my knowledge As per the grammar defined in
"draft-levy-sip-diversion-08" both would be correct.
Even though the tag names 'unconditional' and 'off' is uniquely
defined, One can argue that the quoted ones fall under the quoted-string
part. I would support both for the shake of int
The following thread might be helpful.
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2008-April/018933.html
> -Original Message-
> From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-
> implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of ZEGELS Walter
> Sent:
Hi,
Can someone tell which format of the Diversion header is the correct
one?
Diversion:
;reason=unconditional;privacy=off;counter=1
Diversion:
;reason="unconditional";privacy="off";counter=1
The question is about the quotes around the unconditional and the off
values.
Are they allowed or not
vijay wrote:
> Hi,
>
> a snippet from 3311:
>If a UA receives a non-2xx final response to a UPDATE, he session
> parameters MUST remain unchanged, as if no UPDATE had been issued.
> Note that,
> as stated in Section 12.2.1 of RFC 3261 [1], if the non-2xx final
> response is a
> 481 (Call/Tra
Hi,
a snippet from 3311:
If a UA receives a non-2xx final response to a UPDATE, he session
parameters MUST remain unchanged, as if no UPDATE had been issued.
Note that,
as stated in Section 12.2.1 of RFC 3261 [1], if the non-2xx final
response is a
481 (Call/Transaction Does Not Exist), or a 40
We identified the relative available attributes which could probably affect the
contact header information as below:
1. enable-local-dispatch
2. server-header-value
3. from the transport web page it is found that we can disble the sideways
forwarding by removing the network-access from config.xm
Hi ,
We are using OCCAS Web Logic server to deploy our application. The content
header information has fields wlsscid & sipappsessionid which are coming as
default. Want to understand more how & when these fields are getting populated
and their significance.
if we set the Enable-loca
12 matches
Mail list logo
