@lists.cs.columbia.edu; Paul Kyzivat
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Response code sent by proxy to caller when UAS
not registered
When a call comes into our system, we do look up whether this number is ours
or not. If it is not our number, we would return SIP 404. Then we check the
presence server to see
And also consider a distributed case where you can have a inbound
proxy/Registrar+Location Service, and a B2BUA. In such case, issuing the
appropriate answer may be a distributed responsibility, where 404 may be
issued by the Proxy, while other types of 4xx responses may be issued by
the B2BUA.
When a call comes into our system, we do look up whether this number is ours
or not. If it is not our number, we would return SIP 404. Then we check the
presence server to see if the device is registered. If it is not, we send
back SIP 480. A peer of ours is sending back SIP 403 in this case, which
2011/8/12 Joegen E. Baclor :
> In real life, when there is no binding in the registrar for such AOR, except
> for some cases where a redirect to voicemail is an option, do developers
> really code the registrar to bother looking up the user database just to
> determine a 480 versus a 404 response?
On 8/11/11 3:00 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2011/8/11 Paul Kyzivat:
>> That contrasts with a case where the example.com server receives a
>> request for sip:al...@example.com and discovers that "al...@example.com"
>> is not in the location server, so that registrations for it could not
>> succe
On 08/12/2011 03:00 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2011/8/11 Paul Kyzivat:
>> That contrasts with a case where the example.com server receives a
>> request for sip:al...@example.com and discovers that "al...@example.com"
>> is not in the location server, so that registrations for it could not
>> s
2011/8/11 Paul Kyzivat :
> That contrasts with a case where the example.com server receives a
> request for sip:al...@example.com and discovers that "al...@example.com"
> is not in the location server, so that registrations for it could not
> succeed. In that case 404 not found is appropriate.
Whe
Though in the systems I've worked on, this problem rarely arises, as any
legitimate user has a voicemail account. Thus, for an AOR for a user that
exists in the system, there is always at least one contact point (the voicemail
system).
Dale
___
Sip-
On 8/11/11 12:53 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2011/8/11 Kevin P. Fleming:
>> You are talking about two different things; it's completely possible for
>> a callee's end system to be registered, but for that person to be 'not
>> logged in' (and thus unavailable to receive calls). Having a contact
2011/8/11 Kevin P. Fleming :
> You are talking about two different things; it's completely possible for
> a callee's end system to be registered, but for that person to be 'not
> logged in' (and thus unavailable to receive calls). Having a contact URI
> registered at the callee's AoR does not mean
On 08/11/2011 10:13 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2011/8/11 Kevin P. Fleming:
>>> 21.4.18 480 Temporarily Unavailable
>>>
>>> The callee's end system was contacted successfully but the callee is
>>> currently unavailable (for example, is not logged in, logged in but
>>> in a state
2011/8/11 Kevin P. Fleming :
>> 21.4.18 480 Temporarily Unavailable
>>
>> The callee's end system was contacted successfully but the callee is
>> currently unavailable (for example, is not logged in, logged in but
>> in a state that precludes communication with the callee, or has
>>
> Based on what this says, a 480 response is not appropriate
> for the case where the AoR is not currently mapped to any
> Contact URIs (as the in the OP's query). If there are no
> Contact URIs registered for the AoR, then the "callee's
> end system" cannot have been "contacted successfully".
On 08/11/2011 03:30 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2011/8/11 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé:
>> I've seen code 434 User Not Online being used many times, but I could not
>> find any reference to where/if its standardized :-S
>
> That would be some ugly/limited vendor not understanding section
> 21.4.18 in
2011/8/11 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé :
> I've seen code 434 User Not Online being used many times, but I could not
> find any reference to where/if its standardized :-S
That would be some ugly/limited vendor not understanding section
21.4.18 in RFC 3261:
21.4.18 480 Temporarily Unavailable
The cal
2011/8/11 Rajat Chandna :
> "If the Request-URI indicates a resource at this proxy that does not
> exist, the proxy MUST return a 404 (Not Found) response."
No. 404 means "does not exist". I can be logged off and still exist, don't I?
95% of people is wrong and use 404 for this purpose. Wrong,
: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Response code sent by proxy to caller when UAS
not registered
On Aug 11, 2011, at 2:28 AM, Romel Khan wrote:
> What SIP code should a proxy send back to a caller if the UA the caller is
> trying to reach is currently not
On Aug 11, 2011, at 2:28 AM, Romel Khan wrote:
> What SIP code should a proxy send back to a caller if the UA the caller is
> trying to reach is currently not logged in? Please provide the sip rfc
> quote. Thanks.
I've seen code 434 User Not Online being used many times, but I could not find
an
Khan
[romel.k...@idt.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 5:58 AM
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Response code sent by proxy to caller when UAS
not registered
What SIP code should a proxy send back to a caller if the UA the caller is
trying to reach i
What SIP code should a proxy send back to a caller if the UA the caller is
trying to reach is currently not logged in? Please provide the sip rfc
quote. Thanks.
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.colu
20 matches
Mail list logo
