Re: [Sip-implementors] SIP REGISTRTION INFO

Hi Rakesh, Full trace of your scenario or at least the message body of the fresh REGISTER message sent from UE with new Call-ID may help figure out things. Regards, Mohit Soni On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Rakesh wrote: > Hi Expert, > > I need one info for the following below SIP

Re: [Sip-implementors] SIP Request URI Domain processing without Port

ort) as no specific port is mentioned in Request URI. So, the Request URI you have mentioned will drive the REGISTER message to wrong destination and it should be rejected. Regards, Mohit Soni On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Varadhan Work wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > I'm trying to

Re: [Sip-implementors] Non-dialog NOTIFY for a SUBSCRIPTION with "Event: presence"

tion as a subscription for the service. So, it depends on the SIP client implementation that it wants to follow the RFC or to make itself inter-operable with such servers. ​Regards, Mohit Soni On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:42 AM, pratik patel wrote: > Hi, > > Is it possible to send Non-dial

[Sip-implementors] Recommended interval between two RTCP SR/RR/XR reprots

Hi, What is the recommended interval between two RTCP SR/RR/XR reports for UA. I could not find such information in RFC3550 & 3611. Thanks, Mohit ___ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/ma

Re: [Sip-implementors] UA receives next reliable 180 before the 200OK of PRACK

481 also no impact) > > But dont think its mentioned anywhere explicitly .May be others can provide > some reference for this . > > Regards > Ankur Bansal > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Mohit Soni > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> RFC3262 states follow

Re: [Sip-implementors] UA receives next reliable 180 before the 200OK of PRACK

Hi, RFC3262 states following under section 4 "UAC Behaviour" "Handling of subsequent reliable provisional responses for the same initial request follows the same rules as above, with the following difference: reliable provisional responses are guaranteed to be in order. As a result, if the UAC r

[Sip-implementors] One-way speech issue

ll "f"s in Payload field means no speech in the RTP packet? Is this mentioned in any RFC or standard? Thanks, Mohit Soni ___ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

Re: [Sip-implementors] What if transport=tcp is not mentioned in Contact header of any request/response?

port, if the session termination request (or any other mid-session request) is generated using different transport, then also it shall be entertained??? Is such thing mentioned in any RFC? Thanks, Mohit Soni -Original Message- From: Brett Tate [mailto:br...@broadsoft.com] Sent: Sunday, August

[Sip-implementors] What if transport=tcp is not mentioned in Contact header of any request/response?

it and does not terminate session. Similar kind of case occurs when INVITE with TCP is send by Client and Server does not mention transport in Contact header of 200 OK against INVITE message. So, what shall be the actual behavior in this case? Thanks, Mohit Soni

Re: [Sip-implementors] (no subject)

Hi Satya, It may be Cisco's Unified Call Manager Business Edition 3000. Regards, Mohit Soni -Original Message- From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of satya r Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:31

[Sip-implementors] T.38 UDPTL FAX when call is made using SRTP

tical to update the session of secure RTP with non secure UDPTL (or even normal RTP) using re-INVITE at the middle of the session? Thanks, Mohit Soni ___ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.colum