First of all, many thanks for both answers.
As for your modified example, I think this situation (UAS receiving an ACK
in mortal state, state change caused by BYE received from UAC) is discussed
in sec. 3.1.6 of RFC 5407 (with the sole difference that the first ACK is
lost, not reordered as in
In addition, if an SDP offer contains multiple streams (one RTP/AVP and
one RTP/SAVP) those are actually *separate* streams, not alternate
offers for the same stream.
As far as I know, the only RFC-compliant way to offer both RTP/AVP and
RTP/SAVP for the same media stream is through SDP
RFC 3261.
spot on.
Regards,
Sumit Jindal
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Manoj Priyankara [TG] mano...@suntel.lkwrote:
Dear All,
Please help me understand the use of phone-context field in the From
header of the INVITE. Is it globally significant? How to process the
INVITE coming to a
Hi Manoj,
I did ask about phone-context a while ago:
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2008-March/0188
35.html
RFC 3966 might help too:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3966.txt
Regards
Attila
-Original Message-
From:
Thanks all.
-Original Message-
From: Attila Sipos [mailto:attila.si...@vegastream.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:51 PM
To: Manoj Priyankara [TG]; sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Phone-context header
Hi Manoj,
I did ask about phone-context
Hello,
On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 12:50 +0200, ext Peter Krebs wrote:
While perusing the race condition examples in RFC 5407 I noticed what seems
to be an inconsistency in regard to RFC 3261. The example in sec. 3.2.4
depicts the callee (Bob) sending a BYE request immediately after the 200,
Hi, RFC 3581 defines the usage of ;rport Via param in order for a
server to send UDP responses to the request source port (rather than
the port indicated in Via sent-by).
But this is completely useless in SIP over TCP as, per RFC 3261,
responses are primary sent over the same connection in which
While sending BYE for the initial INVITE is prohibited
by RFC 3261 before an ACK is received, I guess this
does not hold for RE-INVITEs since the dialog is
already established. Is this correct, as re-invites
are not mentioned at all in sec. 15?
RFC 3261 does not generically require the
Hi, a server receives a SIP request over TCP and creates a server
transaction. While processing it, the client sends a request
retransmission but using a different TCP connection.
Note that request matching rules on RFC 3261 - 17.2.3 are passed (same
branch, method and Via sent-by), even if the
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz
Castillo [i...@aliax.net]
Now the question is: where should the server re-send the last replied
response? should it send it over
3 apr 2011 kl. 13.23 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
2011/3/31 Olle E. Johansson o...@edvina.net:
If you are sending only ringback, I would recommend sending 180 with SDP
instead of 183. If you're sending 183, I can't move my state machine to
ringing state, which would help a lot of 3rd party
From: Jaiswal, Sanjiv
2)The is onging audio session between the agents . Now the terminating
end wants to change from audio to video. Termination generates the
reinvite with addition m lines for new audio and video and previous
mline port set to zero (deletion of media). Peer on receiving the
2011/4/12 Worley, Dale R (Dale) dwor...@avaya.com:
Clearly it can use either connection, as it can pretend it did not receive
the message over the other connection!
Humm, I dont' understand, obviously the server did receive the request
from the first connection (if not it wouldn't match the
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [i...@aliax.net]
2011/4/12 Worley, Dale R (Dale) dwor...@avaya.com:
Clearly it can use either connection, as it can pretend it did not receive
the message over the other connection!
Humm, I dont' understand, obviously the
On 4/12/2011 12:21 PM, Randell Jesup wrote:
3 apr 2011 kl. 13.23 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
2011/3/31 Olle E. Johanssono...@edvina.net:
If you are sending only ringback, I would recommend sending 180 with SDP
instead of 183. If you're sending 183, I can't move my state machine to
ringing
15 matches
Mail list logo
