ou are 3261-compliant then you won't care
> if it has a @ anyway. It's just overly officious.
>
> And the easiest way to check for RFC3261-intended-compliance
> is the from-tag in the INVITE request - if there isn't a
> from-tag, it's an RFC2543 implementatio
f call is
> getting changed from completed to confirmed and later we are deleting the
> transaction because it is wrong ACK.
>
>
Your transaction should have been deleted upon sending the 200 OK.
Receipt or none-receipt of ACK is irrelevant.
> Thanks & Regards,
> Shi
If the server retransmits the 2xx response for 64*T1 seconds without
receiving an ACK, the dialog is confirmed, but the session SHOULD be
terminated. This is accomplished with a BYE, as described in Section
15.
> Regards,
> Jitendra.
>
> -Original Message-
> Fr
PRACK.
>
> Paul
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Can the SDP answer be actually sent through PRACK? Shouldn't it be
>> sent in ACK for 200 Ok?
>>
>> Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh) wrote:
>>> 200 OK to the Prack and then terminate the Invite with 488.
>
Can the SDP answer be actually sent through PRACK? Shouldn't it be sent
in ACK for 200 Ok?
Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh) wrote:
> 200 OK to the Prack and then terminate the Invite with 488.
>
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[E
Hi Iñaki,
I think 3261 explains the nomenclature
7.3.1 Header Field Format
The format of a header field-value is defined per header-name. It
will always be either an opaque sequence of TEXT-UTF8 octets, or a
combination of whitespace, tokens, separators, and quoted strings.
Many exi
I have been working on 100rel quite recently so i'll pitch in while it's
still fresh in my thoughts. I think this is allowable. 3262 only
requires that PRACK is received first before sending out pending
provisional response. Even if you send out the 200 Ok for PRACK first
before sending out
.BOX 105, 416
> Korea 442-600
> MO 010-9530-0354
> ----- Original Message -
> From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Serhad Doken (serhad)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [Sip
the same branch id as the
> INVITE so they won't have a unique branch-id whereas INVITE and other
> requests will always have unique branch ids. I don't see a contradiction
> in the text.
>
> Serhad
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Hi,
As per 9.1 Client Behavior of RFC 3261
The following procedures are used to construct a CANCEL request. The
Request-URI, Call-ID, To, the numeric part of CSeq, and From header
fields in the CANCEL request MUST be identical to those in the
request being cancelled, including tags.
Here's a good list. http://www.pernau.at/kd/voip/bookmarks-sip-stacks.html
Of course I have my bias towards OpenSIPStack
MOSBAH ABDELKADER wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have searched in the internet for an open source and complete C or C++ SIP
> stack.
>
> The number was important.
>
> I want to kn
s SIP Sample.
>
> Can anybody inspect the log and tell me if there are errors.
>
> Thank you in advance!
>
> state=0
> open UDP connection!
> state=1
> Register!
> (REGISTER sip:sipgate.at:5060 SIP/2.0
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.10.2:5060;branch=z9hG4bK_000FC901556B_T53CBF
industry in adopting
SIP as their choice for IMS?"
> On 8/26/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> From: "Arnab Biswas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> I am just curious to know what are the major challenges SIP is
>>
Try OpenSBC. It can be compiled and installed as a windows service.
http://www.opensipstack.org
Tapan Kumar Biswal wrote:
> hi
>i need an opensource window based SIP server, any please help me to find
> it out.
>
>
>
> thanks
>
> Tapan
> ___
> Si
I made a sweeping generalization and included processing of
forked responses.
Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Paul,
>>
>> I don't think Being strict with what you send and liberal with what
>> you receive applies in this case. If onl
Which is one of the reason why some parties would want forking
deprecated. I hope I could categorically say we should. Anyway, the
offer-answer model is quite clear.
Dmitry Akindinov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> What I'm sure of is that the offer answ
Paul,
I don't think Being strict with what you send and liberal with what you
receive applies in this case. If only the version number differs, then
treat it as stray would do the trick (since you should assume that
getting a different version in the SDP should have the same effect if
you pr
If a UA explicitly tells a proxy that a registration has expired by
telling it the that Expires: 0 for Contact: * ... (witha new CSeq) in it
says otherwise by giving you 7200, it is not anymore your (UAs)
problem. If it (proxy) continues to route requests to the UA after it
(UA) told the prox
What I'm sure of is that the offer answer model require one offer and
one answer. The answer to the offer is final. This is regardless
whether the answer came in in a provisional response or a final response
or through a presidential decree. If 183 is received, then that is
your answer, re
For the benefit of the doubter ...
Media sessions can only be changed if the change was offered. 3261
allowed provisional responses which can provide none reliable preview of
the answer. What is not clear was if the preview would be treated as
the final response in case it reached the UAC. L
http://www.opensipstack.org
arun kumar wrote:
> Hi,
> I am looking for a SIP Open Source code in
> C++/VC++ for Windows. I am planning on making minor
> modification for my thesis work. Any help is
> appreciated. Thanks in advance.
> - Arun.
>
>
>
> ___
ecause they are free to do so.
Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh) wrote:
> Inline ...
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:04 AM
>> To: Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh)
>> Cc: Jer
Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh) wrote:
> I think the RFC is pretty clear on what the behavior should be. Here is
> the quote from sec. 22.2:
>
>When a UAC resubmits a request with its credentials after receiving a
>401 (Unauthorized) or 407 (Proxy Authentication Required) response,
>it MUST i
Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
>
> So the SHOULD covers not only the Call-ID, but also To and From
> headers. It is probably a SHOULD because there may be reasons that
> from or to headers would be different. The UAC has no valid reason to
> use a different Call-ID (and in fact is probably using the s
Scott Lawrence wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 23:02 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>>> In all of the above cases, the request is retried by creating a new
>>> request with the appropriate modifications. This new request
>>> constitutes a new transact
Scott Lawrence wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 22:37 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Scott Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 22:21 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks for giving s
Scott Lawrence wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 22:21 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>> Thanks for giving some time. I realize that I SHOULD be reusing the
>> call-id of the client side of the B2B connection when I retry the
>> credential. However, It se
Scott Lawrence wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 11:11 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> Recently, I am having problem with one UA that ignores
>> Proxy-Authorization header if the call-id of the INVITE (Out of Dialog)
>> is not the s
Hi Everyone,
Recently, I am having problem with one UA that ignores
Proxy-Authorization header if the call-id of the INVITE (Out of Dialog)
is not the same as the one previously challenged. What I am using is a
B2BUA which generates a new call-id for the outbound leg.
the call flow is
UAC --
An error response to an INVITE terminates a transaction. The error MAY
occur before the INVITE reaches the actual destination. Example is a
404 generated by a proxy because it cannot route the INVITE to an actual
UA. A 200 Ok for an INVITE, however, can only be generated by the
destination
BYE with either a different from or to tags
or better yet, use a none existent call-id
sarthakd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to create an OUT OF DIALOG BYE.
>
> Logically, one of the options would be to change the from or to tags. Just
> wanted to know if I send a BYE without 'to' tag, will it b
arun kumar wrote:
> Hi All,
> Could some tell me where I can find source
> code for SIP that I can modify using VC++. I need it
> to perform the basic operations. Thanks in advance.
>
> - Arun. S
>
>
OpenSIPStack - http://www.opensipstack.org is one. reSIProcate is
another - http:
32 matches
Mail list logo
