Hi
If a binding is to be deregistered or re-register(for binding
updation), Is it mandatory to have the same sent-by as the previous old
register request. Is there any specification that says about registrar policy
for sent-by.In 3261 sec 10, I didn't find any importance of sent-by in
Many reasons exist for sending the 488; see rfc3261. Concerning the specific
issue... among other reasons, it could be because the SBC or the device on the
other side don't support (or are unwilling to honor) the requested SDP
modification.
> -Original Message-
> From: sip-implementors
Dear All,
I am facing the problem with one of my fax call scenario. Essentially UAC &
UAS established the successful dialog(in other words after sending 183 with
SDP & 200 OK with SDP in the correspondence of initial invite we got the ACK
from UAC and forwarded the same to UAS). Till now everyth
2010/4/22 chozhan A :
> After sending a ACK, you can try terminating the session/dialog with a BYE.
Yes, I strongly recommend sending a BYE in case the 200 is wrong (but
its "branch" matches). It would avoid accounting issues with some
broken vendors. I tell it by experience.
--
Iñaki Baz Castil
After sending a ACK, you can try terminating the session/dialog with a BYE.
From: Brett Tate
To: kanthu canty ;
"Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu"
Sent: Wed, 21 April, 2010 6:00:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Hi..SIP implementors..
It depends up
Hi All,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I would like to get the discussion back on track
The questin is "Is it a MUST condition even for a REGISTER request to have sips
contact when the next hop is sips"?
Let me explain the situation a bit in detail.
Assume UA1 is trying t do a "third-party"
