MessageMy interpretation is that it is always acceptable for one UA to send a re-INVITE to request to change the media status in any way it wishes. In this case, one UA is requesting that (in PSTN terms) the call be taken off hold by the other UA. However, if the other UA is unable or unwilling to to this, it should reject the re-INVITE on the grounds that it does not like the SDP, which according to RFC 3261 section 13.3.1.3 means it should send a 488 (Not Acceptable Here) response.
Dale -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chadha Retesh-A19894 Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 6:26 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [Sip] question rgding call hold I have a query regarding call hold. I am not really sure if this is already discussed, but wanted an advice from the experts here. Is the following call flow acceptable?? Make Call Invite --> 200 ok <-- ACK --> Hold ---> INVITE(sendonly) --> 200 ok(recvonly) <--- ACK --> INVITE(sendrecv) <--- ?????? What should be the response to this INVITE request - 200ok with sendonly or 400 bad request? Wont this INVITE mean, that the remote is trying to release local hold, which is unacceptable? Also, i have not seen any rules regarding this in RFC 3261 or the sipping examples draft. Please redirect me to any other references, which talk about attribute modes in subsequent requests after call hold. Thanks in advance Retesh _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
