[Sip-implementors] Record Route header processing for unreliable 18x response at UAC end

2011-09-08 Thread Abhishek Sahu
Hello All I've one query regarding behavior of Record-Route. If Record-Route is present in SIP unreliable 18x response and UPDATE needs to be sent prior to receiving of 2xx response. So should the Route header for the UPDATE request be updated according to the Record-Route of 18x response? In

Re: [Sip-implementors] PRACK Message

2011-09-08 Thread prakash k
Hi Salil Please rules of Offer answer. The rules for sending offers: - offer may be sent in INVITE - if there was no offer in INVITE, offer MUST be sent in first reliable response to INVITE - offer may be sent in 100rel (reliable 1XX series response) - offer may be sent in PRACK

[Sip-implementors] Regarding Display Name when Privacy:id

2011-09-08 Thread prakash k
Hi All, I have the following scenario: Incoming invite has Privacy:id along "From" header carrying "Display Name" Where as the outgoing INVITE has "From" Header set "sip:Anonymous@Anonymous.invalid" whereas the display-name goes as it is. Is there any draft mentioning about this behavior han

Re: [Sip-implementors] Cannot register with server

2011-09-08 Thread Tarun2 Gupta
Hi Wyne The server is changing the value of nonce in each 401 and is not specifying 'stale' parameter. Refer RFC 2617: stale A flag, indicating that the previous request from the client was rejected because the nonce value was stale. If stale is TRUE (case-insensitive), the cli

[Sip-implementors] Cannot register with server

2011-09-08 Thread Wyne Wolf
Hi, Can someone look at this log? I can't see what is wrong with it, but the server refusing registration. Thank you. Thu Sep 08 21:32:02 Europe/Dublin 2011 Send to //217.10.79.23:5060(522) REGISTER sip:sipgate.co.uk SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.1:5060;rport;branch=z9hG4bK-8ac3fcfe85ec54e

Re: [Sip-implementors] PRACK Message

2011-09-08 Thread Evgeniy Khramtsov
On 09.09.2011 04:28, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > The latter is now RFC 6337 (finally!) Holly shit, I can't believe my eyes. That RFC is a miracle! Thank you very much for the point. -- Regards, Evgeniy Khramtsov, ProcessOne. xmpp:x...@jabber.ru. ___ Sip-i

Re: [Sip-implementors] Call Transfer using 3pcc

2011-09-08 Thread Paul Kyzivat
On 9/6/11 5:02 PM, sathish kumar chevuru wrote: > Hi, > > In case of Call Transfer using 3pcc and REFER , If the Callee sends out > REFER without sending INVITE HOLD, What should be the behaviour of 3pcc. > > Does 3pcc sends out INVITE HOLD's to Caller and Callee , before > initiating the

Re: [Sip-implementors] PRACK Message

2011-09-08 Thread Paul Kyzivat
On 9/5/11 12:23 AM, Tarun2 Gupta wrote: > Hi Salil > > As per offer answer model, SDP in PRACK can be an offer as well as an answer. > Refer RFC 3262 > and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-18 for further details: The latter is now RFC 6337 (finally!) Thanks

Re: [Sip-implementors] Call Transfer using 3pcc

2011-09-08 Thread Worley, Dale R (Dale)
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of sathish kumar chevuru [satish.chev...@gmail.com] In case of Call Transfer using 3pcc and REFER , If the Callee sends out REFER without sendi

Re: [Sip-implementors] Subscribe transaction

2011-09-08 Thread Tarun2 Gupta
Hi isshed Early NOTIFY's are a common phenomenon (due to potential of out-of-order messages and forking). Retransmissions are a property of the transaction layer. Even on receipt of a NOTIFY, the UAC should not cease retransmissions of Subscribe. Regards, Tarun Gupta Aricent -Original Mes