Thank you Brett, Dale and Paul for your valuable comments.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> I agree with Brett on all points. If you are writing a test suite for sip,
> then I think you should reject the invite. 481 seems like a reasonable
> response, but may not be sufficie
Title: Sip Implementors, Ravi left a message for you
See this email in English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Português or 36 other languages.
I agree with Brett on all points. If you are writing a test suite for
sip, then I think you should reject the invite. 481 seems like a
reasonable response, but may not be sufficient to indicate the problem.
OTOH, if you are simply trying to build a system that maximally
interoperates with othe
Brett Tate writes:
> In my opinion if the device doesn't want to support it, it can reject the
> request (although there might be a better failure response). However,
> there might be interoperability reasons to support it.
>
> In my opinion, you are experiencing a non-compliant reuse of Call-ID;
> There is a connected call with dialog id as (callid1,
> from tag ftag1, to tag ttag1). When BYE is received at
> UA1 it responds with 200 ok and starts running Timer J
> timer(32 seconds). After 5 seconds a new INVITE is
> received by UA1 having same callid as previous call(callid1)
> and new fro
In that case invite must be accepted.
Thanks and Regards
Dheeraj Kumar
Sent from iPhone
> On 24-Aug-2016, at 3:39 PM, isshed wrote:
>
> no to tag is not there
>
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 1:27 PM, My Gmail wrote:
>> Can you please confirm if to tag is available in the invite or not? If yes
no to tag is not there
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 1:27 PM, My Gmail wrote:
> Can you please confirm if to tag is available in the invite or not? If yes
> then 481 is expected else it must be accepted.
>
> Thanks and Regards
> Dheeraj Kumar
>
> Sent from iPhone
>
>> On 24-Aug-2016, at 1:11 PM, isshe
Dears,
I had an experience were i captured a traces from a network and i tried to
listen to the audio related to that specific session.
The SIP signaling session is secured via IMS-AKA and with contents are
encrypted in that SIP signaling Session.
RTP is plain.
Both control and data plane traff
Can you please confirm if to tag is available in the invite or not? If yes then
481 is expected else it must be accepted.
Thanks and Regards
Dheeraj Kumar
Sent from iPhone
> On 24-Aug-2016, at 1:11 PM, isshed wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:39 AM, My Gmail wrote:
>> This behavior is
It must accept the new call as from tag is different. Their is no connection
between both the call. 481 is for in dialog message.
Thanks and Regards
Dheeraj Kumar
Sent from iPhone
> On 24-Aug-2016, at 1:11 PM, isshed wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:39 AM, My Gmail wrote:
>> This beh
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:39 AM, My Gmail wrote:
> This behavior is in correct. The device should match the dialog. If the
> invite doesn't contain to tag then it is a new invite. If it's reinvite then
> device must compare call Id, from tag and to tag if it support 3261.
>
>
> Thanks and Regar
11 matches
Mail list logo
