Re: [Sip-implementors] "Privacy" header without PAI or PPI?

See below. Thanks, Neel. > -Original Message- > From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip- > implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz > Castillo > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 3:34 PM > To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Subje

Re: [Sip-implementors] Privacy values

See below. > -Original Message- > From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip- > implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz > Castillo > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 4:51 PM > To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Subject: [Sip-implemen

Re: [Sip-implementors] in-active in answer with sendonly in offer

See below. > -Original Message- > From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip- > implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of kaiduan xie > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:09 PM > To: Dale Worley > Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Subject: Re:

Re: [Sip-implementors] Sip Forking

See inline. > -Original Message- > From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip- > implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Jerell > Billings > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 2:57 PM > To: Dale Worley > Cc: Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Subje

Re: [Sip-implementors] draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-02 doesn't allow IPv4 as "1.2.3.04"

See below > -Original Message- > From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip- > implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz > Castillo > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:06 PM > To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Subject: [Sip-impleme

Re: [Sip-implementors] Query related to SDP in 200 OK after UPDATE

See below. > -Original Message- > From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip- > implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Subbu > Rajendran > Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 7:29 AM > To: Nebojsa Miljanovic > Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu

Re: [Sip-implementors] Retry intervals

See below. Thanks, Neel. > -Original Message- > From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip- > implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Dale Worley > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 5:40 PM > To: sip-implementors > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Retry

Re: [Sip-implementors] BYE in Confirmed/Moratorium state (RFC 5407)

See below. > -Original Message- > From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip- > implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Burrow > Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 3:22 PM > To: Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Subject: [Sip-implementors] BY

Re: [Sip-implementors] How to know SIP200 or RTP message is on the port?

Are you looking to see the real time events like SIP messages, RTP, etc, you can use network protocol sniffers/analyzers like tcpdump, Wireshark, etc. The ports for SIP messages are typically 5060 or 5061. The RTP port ranges are dynamic. You can use your favorite packet sniffers to see such

Re: [Sip-implementors] PRAC/B2BUA

ion. > 183-4 has SDP, but no Required header. > > The call fails. > > My question is: is legal for B2BUA to put Supported header with 100rel > if UA1 indicates that it does not support 100rel? I think B2BUA is > wrong in this case. [Neelakantan Balasubramanian] B2BUA can

Re: [Sip-implementors] Empty Proxy-Authorization Header

ithin > some > > headers such as Supported. > > "Supported" header does NOT allow empty value: > > > Supported = ( "Supported" / "k" ) HCOLON [option-tag *(COMMA option- > tag)] [Neelakantan Balasubramanian] Section 20.37 Supported

Re: [Sip-implementors] Offer in 2xx of INVITE

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nabam Serbang > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:03 AM > To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Offer in 2xx of INVITE > > Hi All, > > Section 13.2.2.4 of rfc 3261 says that > " If the offer in t

Re: [Sip-implementors] Proper negative final status code for malformed SDP

Looking at RFC 3261, 400 Bad request is a better response. A Reason/Warning header can be added in the response. 21.4.1 400 Bad Request The request could not be understood due to malformed syntax. The Reason-Phrase SHOULD identify the syntax problem in more detail, for example, "Missi

Re: [Sip-implementors] query for ACK retransmission

See section RFC 3261 13.2.2.4 2xx Responses. It is clear that every retransmitted 200 OK response requires a retransmit of ACK. Thanks, Neel. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Harsha. R Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:17 AM To: Maxim Sob

Re: [Sip-implementors] Different SDP in same early-dialog (same To_tag)

See below. Thanks, Neel. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz Castillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 9:31 AM To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: [Sip-implementors] Different SDP in same early-

Re: [Sip-implementors] Query regarding 'To' tag in REGISTER request

Typically a REGISTER request doesn't not establish a dialog. RFC 3261 section 10.2. " A REGISTER request does not establish a dialog. A UAC MAY include a Route header field in a REGISTER request based on a pre-existing route set as described in Section 8.1. The Record-Route header fiel

Re: [Sip-implementors] Server time out - 504

>From RFC 3261, The response codes are in consistent with HTTP. 21 Response Codes The response codes are consistent with, and extend, HTTP/1.1 response codes. Not all HTTP/1.1 response codes are appropriate, and only those that are appropriate are given here. Other HTTP/1.1 response