Hello folks
I have an IMS case where a terminating point for emergency calls (PSAP) is
performing callback to the user that placed the original emergency call.
It appears that the top most Route header in CallBack INVITE needs to have
a Callback timer indication.
Does anyone happen to have an ex
> > Does the request include *any* Allow header field?
>
> No request do not have any Allow header.
Since you only mentioned "request", you might want to check all of the requests
and responses from the UA associated with the dialog. However as Paul
mentioned, RFC 3261 section 20.5 may be appli
Hi Paul,
> Does the request include *any* Allow header field?
No request do not have any Allow header.
Thanks,
Puneet
-Original Message-
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:54 PM
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [S
> I am seeing a case where UAC sends an in-dialog
> REFER but do not include "Allow: NOTIFY".
> Due to this UAS is not able to send a NOTIFY
> with sipfrag back to UAC.
>
> Is this valid?
As far as I know, RFC 3515 assumes referrer supports NOTIFY; however it doesn't
indicate that the referrer
On 10/24/13 10:37 AM, Kumar, Puneet (Puneet) wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am seeing a case where UAC sends an in-dialog REFER but do not include
> "Allow: NOTIFY".
> Due to this UAS is not able to send a NOTIFY with sipfrag back to UAC.
>
> Is this valid?
> What can be use case for not supporting NOTIFY
Hi All,
I am seeing a case where UAC sends an in-dialog REFER but do not include
"Allow: NOTIFY".
Due to this UAS is not able to send a NOTIFY with sipfrag back to UAC.
Is this valid?
What can be use case for not supporting NOTIFY?
Thanks,
Puneet
__
Thanks Paul and Brett.
I have treated as a valid offer because the port is zero. Also, if all of
the m lines presents do not have PT list. then I rejected with 488.
Thanking you again!!
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 10/23/13 6:23 AM, Brett Tate wrote:
> >> Also I w
