Re: [Sip-implementors] Arbitrary Via parameters

Hi, If branch parameter got introduced in 3261 and this MUST be GUID. >From 3261: The branch parameter value MUST be unique across space and time for all requests sent by the UA. The exceptions to this rule are CANCEL and ACK for non-2xx responses. As discussed below, a CANCEL reques

Re: [Sip-implementors] - RFC 6337 Section 5.1 - reINVITE without sdp

Pavan, The Re-INVITE in this use case is modifying a dialog. It is upto the UA to populate what is configured on that UA. If for some reason the UAC1 does not accept the offer, it shall roll back to the previous negotiated state. Thanks, Neel > -Original Message- > From: sip-implem

Re: [Sip-implementors] Maximum length allowed in SIP header TO, FROM, VIA

Hi Munna Kumar, There is no upper limit defined by RFC 3261 for individual fields and header elements. Implementation should be prepared to handle arbitrarily large fields. Thanks, Neel. > -Original Message- > From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip- > implemen

Re: [Sip-implementors] Precondition negotiation in re-INVITE

Hi Amrita, Reading the RFC 3312, I don’t see reference to do a precondition negotiation after the call is connected. All precondition related to offer/answer are completed prior to the call gets connected. If you stick with offer/answer approach, the precondition failure in Re-INVITE does mean

Re: [Sip-implementors] Query in handling 180 response by proxy

Please review RFC 3261. This is addressed in it. The provisional response must be forwarded by proxy to the UAC. The answer ( 200 OK) can be from any of the UAS and there is no way of Proxy knowing it. The UAC should be prepared to handle forked responses. Thanks, Neel

Re: [Sip-implementors] Cause Code in the 500 Server Internal Error message

Check the RFC 3326. It allows the Reason to be in Responses as well, RFC 3326The Reason Header Field for SIPDecember 2002 Initially, the Reason header field defined here appears to be most useful for BYE and CANCEL requests, but it can appear in any request wi

Re: [Sip-implementors] Registration doubt in SIP.

This is addressed in the UAS side of REGISTER handling. See Section 10.3 Processing REGISTER Requests 6. The registrar checks whether the request contains the Contact header field. If not, it skips to the last step. If the Contact header field is present, the registrar

Re: [Sip-implementors] How is a VIA added as either a IPV4 address or IP6 Address by a Proxy/B2BUA

The UAC should decide the IP version prior to sending. There are a few IETF RFC that discusses the IPv4/IPv6 and dual stack challenges and implementation considerations. You may want to read this RFC 6555, RFC 6157 as a start. Typically if you have IP address as the UAS, then it is fairly st

Re: [Sip-implementors] Accept Language Header syntax

Hi Gauri, The example you provided for Accept-Language violates the ABNF grammar for given in RFC 3261. However if the endpoint does not interpret headers it may just silently ignore. Accept-Language = "Accept-Language" HCOLON [ language *(COMMA language) ] language

Re: [Sip-implementors] Multiple telephone-event in "m" line

Hi Gaurav, The m line is telling that the UA can handle and prepared to accept the following media types. So, in this case, the UA says it can be accepting both form of telephone events. Thanks, Neel. -Original Message- From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:s

Re: [Sip-implementors] From Header value is getting changed from 100 trying to 200OK

Hi Sourav, The URI is not used for matching in 3261. So, in order to have better interoperability, you should limit to matching the fields identified by 3261. Thanks, Neel. 12.2.1.1 Generating the Request A request within a dialog is constructed by using many of the components of the

Re: [Sip-implementors] Intra Call with OpenIMS not working,

See inline. -Original Message- From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Sumant Gupta Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:29 PM To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: [Sip-implementors] Intra Cal

Re: [Sip-implementors] Query regarding SDP negotiation

See inline. -Original Message- From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Sourav Dhar Chaudhuri Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 2:24 AM To: Brett Tate; sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu; abh.an...@gmai

Re: [Sip-implementors] Message Body in ACK other than SDP

The ACK can have a message body, if the Offer/Answer is done in 200 OK/ACK. The offer/answer can have multipart-mime message body. In that case, ACK can have multipart-mime body (with embedded SDP). Thanks, Neel. > -Original Message- > From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia

Re: [Sip-implementors] hi

Hello, This is dependent upon the way proxy and registrar is configured. Surrogate registrations can be done for non-sip endpoints also. If authentication is used, then it is better INVITE message also go via proxy, so the proxy can handle challenge. Thanks, Neel. > -Original Message---

Re: [Sip-implementors] SDP media line reordering in reINVITE.

You can check the offer/answer RFC 3264. See inline. > -Original Message- > From: Kumar, Puneet (Puneet) [mailto:pune...@avaya.com] > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 12:45 PM > To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Subject: [Sip-implementors] SDP media line reordering in reINVITE. > >