___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
Thus:
Does role of UA as UAC/UAS change on each transaction or it remain
intact for throughout the session?
Yes, UAC and UAS role for each transaction.
Regards,
Ravi Kumar
ntors
can decouple the actions of the user (e.g., hanging up) from the
actions of the protocol (the sending of BYE F6), so that the UA can
behave like this. In this case, it is the implementor's choice as to
how long to wait.
Regards,
Ravi Kumar
-Original Message
request?
Regards,
Ravi Kumar
-Original Message-
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Tarun2
Gupta
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 1:20 PM
To: SIP
Subject: [Sip-implementors] ReInvite times out, should a Cancel
NF it should be int-delay:
Also example mentions that int-delay=
This looks like bug in RFC. Please confirm which is correct ABNF.
Regards,
Ravi Kumar
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://list
Hi,
Thanks for reply.
So for better interoperability (with proxies for which RFC is not clear
about CSeq for forked leg) if UAC send request with higher CSeq (in below
mention scenario CSeq 3) then call be always successful.
Please share your opinion.
Regards,
Ravi Kumar
What about proxy, I do not find any text in RFC 3261 for proxy behavior.
So call stateful proxy can expect CSeq as 3. How to deal with call stateful
proxy?
Regards,
Ravi Kumar
error condition
Please share your opinion on this.
Regards,
Ravi Kumar
-
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from
HUAWEI, which is
error condition
Please share your opinion on this.
Regards,
Ravi Kumar
-
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from
HUAWEI, which is
described below MUST NOT be removed.
Regards,
Ravi Kumar
-
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from
HUAWEI, which is intended only for the
Hi All,
Need your suggestion on this .
I have doubt on authorization field present in sip request
message
Please refer below link.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2617.txt
The Authorization Request Header
The client is expected to retry the request, passing an Authorization
header line, which
retransmission of 2xx response
can be done is 4 times.
If application do not want retransmission than use reliable
transport that is TCP.
Thanks & Regards,
Ravi Kumar
This e-mail
. So in this case application
MUST have refresher as uas in 200 response.
Thanks & Regards,
Ravi Kumar
This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI,
whic
ne 28, 2011 7:46 PM
To: Ravi Kumar
Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] no supported header in re-invite or
different value
Is there a question here?
Paul
On 6/28/2011 4:31 AM, Ravi Kumar wrote:
> Thank to Paul and Brett for reply.
>
>
>
pcc transfer. But it doesn't really matter if there is a
use case, this is how it works.
Thanks,
Paul
On 6/22/2011 2:25 AM, Ravi Kumar wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> 1.
>
>
>
> CallerCallee
>
>
>
>
&g
Thanks & Regards,
Ravi Kumar
This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI,
which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is
rport parameter is not present in Via header than
response will be send to default port that is 5060 for TCP so NAT may reject
this.
Thanks & Regards,
Ravi Kumar
This e-mail and attachment
successful.
Because both INVITE request belong to two dialogs/session so can
have different From, To header. B2BUA keeps mapping between this two
dialogs.
Regards,
Ravi Kumar
for retransmitting them (see Section 13.3.1.4), and the UAC alone
takes responsibility for acknowledging them with ACK (see Section
13.2.2.4). Since this ACK is retransmitted only by the UAC, it is
effectively considered its own transaction.
Thanks & Regards,
Ravi K
_
From: Ravi Kumar [mailto:raviku...@huawei.com]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 7:27 PM
To: ''sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu'
Subject: Regarding Rfc 4028
Hi All,
I have call flow Like below.
UE
t traveled any
proxy. So UAC should not receive multiple 2xx or 1xx response.
If UAC receive multiple 2xx or 1xx response then it has travel
through at least one proxy. So UAS should add To-Tag.
Thanks & Regar
supports 100rel.
In below scenario UAS should send provisional response reliably.
Thanks & Regards,
Ravi Kumar
This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HU
Thanks for your response!
I understand call-Id should be unique for one call and 4xx should be proper
response. Does any sip rfc mention what ideally we should do if we get two
different call-id.
rgds,
Ravi
On 5/19/10, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>
> 2010/5/19 RAVI KUMAR :
>
&
Hi All,
I am in dilemma what should be ideal behaviour in this case.
I am getting two different call-id in single invite message . Lets say two
callid call-ID A and call-ID B as a part of same invite message.
Currently gateway while sending response it is concatenating both callid
(Call-ID A,B).
atory.
This way for 421 rsp why it is not mandatory.
Please let me know if I am missing something.
Thanks & Regards,
Ravi Kumar
-Original Message-
From: Vikram Chhibber [mailto:vikram.chhib...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 4:23 AM
To: Ravi Kumar
Cc: sip-imp
. Because here seems some conflict between the table 3
and the section 21.4.16.
Because this is one place I have found different behavior in rfc.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks & Regards,
Ravi Kumar
___
Sip-implementors mailing
t with
; (as per abnf )but that is not present so parser will fail.
Please suggest me is this the problem in rfc, or some info I
have missed.
Thanks in advance
Regards,
Ravi Kumar
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
27 matches
Mail list logo
