Paul,
Unless I'm much mistaken proxies can only forward one non-2xx final
response upstream. Multiple early-dialogs don't change that.
Thanks,
Anders
On 2/22/2010 1:40 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> At end...
>
> Aaron Clauson wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Dale Worley [mailto:dwor.
Section 12.2.1.1 of 3261 talks about how the UAC constructs mid-dialog
requests and it concerns itself with how From and To *URI* and tags are
set. There's nothing in there suggesting that header parameters MUST or
even SHOULD be retained. The part about 2543 compatibility also does
not talk a
http://sourceforge.net/projects/callplot
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Hi, is there any software tool (running over Linux if's possible)
> which allows creating SIP flows in text format?
> I want to write some flows in the same format as the SIP flows
> appearing in RFC3261 and so.
>
> PD: I'm NOT
Inaki,
I think that all of what you ask for can probably be achieved through
some combination of HTTP/HTML/flash, IMAP (possibly including extensions
being developed in the lemonade WG) and SIP MWI. Vendors may currently
use proprietary mechanisms for voicemail access from desktop phones but
I
Also, the 2xx and the NOTIFY may not follow the exact same path: 2xx
traverses all nodes that the SUBSCRIBE traversed whereas the NOTIFY will
only need to traverse the subset of proxies that record-routed the
SUBSCRIBE. Hence, the NOTIFY may very well arive at the UAC before the
2xx even withou
a new transaction and so would likely be rejected because the
CSeq is not incremented.
Anders
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
> Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> El Lunes, 14 de Julio de 2008, Anders Kristensen escribió:
>>
>>>> But I'm not speaki
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> El Lunes, 14 de Julio de 2008, Anders Kristensen escribió:
>> Inaki,
>>
>> I think you're outside the specs here.
>
> Why? Of course my aim is being specs compliant, but I don't know which are
> the
> specs for the case
Inaki,
I think you're outside the specs here. What you propose makes sense but
a word of warning: don't make routing or authorization decisions based
on source IP/port. Not that I'd recommend doing so anyway.
Anders
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> El Lunes, 14 de Julio de 2008, Iñaki Baz Castillo
inline...
Attila Sipos wrote:
> It's not legal.
>
> The " would have to be escaped
>
> So this would be ok
> Contact:
>
> I mean, I don't know for sure it's not legal but
> such a trivial change (to allow the ") is so
> unnecessary that I doubt it would be allowed.
> It would break all SIP par
Another small thing: continuation lines can start with horizontal tab in
addition to space.
Anders
Frank W. Miller wrote:
>
> I've been following this discussion for a bit. I agree that the grammar is
> probably overly permissive but it is what it is. Just for fun, I decided to
> contribute a
Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> I think the part that is not clearly specified is when the referee may
> terminate the subscription. It must send at least one NOTIFY, but I
> think it principle it could set the subscription state to terminated in
> the very first NOTIFY if it wanted, even though the ref
11 matches
Mail list logo
