Hi, I am having one doubt regarding RFC 2833 DTMF.
In this RFC there are two way to put payload part in RTP tacket for DTMF 1. As digit 2. As frequency What is meant by frequency (Does it mean that we can add two frequency that map to DTMF digit and send Example 112 + 112 = 224 as payload value or we should send frequency tone data as payload value) Look forward to kind reply in this context. Regards Man Mohan Singh Bisht On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : >Send Sip-implementors mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Sip-implementors digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. From Tag and To Tag - regarding (Raj) > 2. Re: FW: Query on max-forwards counts (Kasturi Narayanan) > 3. Re: Sip-implementors] Query on max-forwards counts (Bogdan > Pintea) > 4. Re: Re-transmission in forking case (Paul Kyzivat) > 5. Re: FW: Query on max-forwards counts (Song, Youngsun) > 6. Re: Only one session in forking case (Paul Kyzivat) > 7. Re: From Tag and To Tag - regarding (Bin Chen) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:57:55 -0800 (PST) > From: Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [Sip-implementors] From Tag and To Tag - regarding >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > >Hello, > > Actually to identify a call, we use call-id. Can anyone please > tell me the importance of FROM tag and TO tag in the SIP messages? I am > really confused on the information related to tag. > > thanks in advance > > with regards > Raj. > > >--------------------------------- >Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:42:43 -0600 > From: "Kasturi Narayanan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] FW: Query on max-forwards counts >To: sip-implementors <[email protected]>, ysong > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > >The approach suggested by Robert Sparks solves the problem but creates an >un-necessary hop when the sender knows for sure that it going to be dropped by >the Receiver (since it is sending with mf=0). > >Kasturi > >-----Original Message----- > From: Song, Youngsun [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:22 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: [Sip-implementors] FW: Query on max-forwards counts > >Hi, > >Please see the attached response from Robert Sparks regarding this >query. (FYI, I had also sent him a separate email...) >Per his response, Proxy-B should forward the request to UA-B. > >Thanks to all who has taken the time to respond to my query, >YoungSun > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:12 AM > > To: Song, Youngsun > > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Query on max-forwards counts > > > > See page 95, item 3. > > > > You reject when you receive, not before you send. > > You reject when you receive a max-forwards of 0, not when you > > receive a max-forwards of 1. > > > > RjS > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Song, > > >> Youngsun > > >> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 11:19 AM > > >> To: [email protected] > > >> Subject: [Sip-implementors] Query on max-forwards counts > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> I have a clarification question on the following statement > > in Section > > >> 8.1.1.6 of RFC3261 regarding when a proxy should send a 483 and > > >> whether the number of hops includes the destination hop. > > >> > > >> "The Max-Forwards header field serves to limit the number > > of hops a > > >> request can transit on the way to its destination. It > > consists of an > > >> integer that is decremented by one at each hop. If the > > Max-Forwards > > >> value reaches 0 before the request reaches its > > destination, it will > > >> be rejected with a 483(Too Many Hops) error response." > > >> > > >> > > >> Consider the following flow: (mf=max-forwards) > > >> > > >> > > >> UA-A --- INVITE (mf=2) ---> Proxy-A ---- INVITE (mf=1) > > ---> Proxy-B > > >> ---- INVITE (mf=0) ---> UA-B > > >> > > >> > > >> In the flow above, should Proxy-B forward the INVITE with > > >> max-forwards=0 to UA-B or should it reject the request with 483? > > >> > > >> Thanks for your help in advance, > > >> YoungSun > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Sip-implementors mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > >> > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Sip-implementors mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:05:49 +0100 > From: Bogdan Pintea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Sip-implementors] Query on > max-forwards counts >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >Correct! Only if >- incoming request has mf=0 and >- request should be proxied further >must the Proxy-B generate the 483. > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This is not correct. As per RFC3261 chapter 16.3 bullet 3 and chapter > > 16.6 bullet 3 > > Proxy-B will forward the INVITE with Max-Forwards on zero to UA-B. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Ben. > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > >> As per 3261: it should reject the request with 483. > >> > >> HTH, > >> Sreeram. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 5:57 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: [Sip-implementors] Sip-implementors] Query on max-forwards > >> counts > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> Consider the following flow: (mf=max-forwards) > >>> > >>> > >>> UA-A --- INVITE (mf=2) ---> Proxy-A ---- INVITE (mf=1) ---> > >>> Proxy-B ---- INVITE (mf=0) ---> UA-B > >>> > >>> > >>> In the flow above, should Proxy-B forward the INVITE with > >>> max-forwards=0 to UA-B or should it reject the request with 483? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Sip-implementors mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > >> > >> > >> The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments > >> to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and > >> may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you > >> are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or > >> copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all > >> copies of this message and any attachments. > >> > >> WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The recipient > >> should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. > >> The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus > >> transmitted by this email. > >> > >> www.wipro.com > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Sip-implementors mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > >> > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:17:52 -0500 > From: Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Re-transmission in forking case >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [email protected] >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >No. Each is a separate transaction and gets its own retransmissions. > > Paul > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi, > > when a UA generates an INVITE and forks it to multiple locations, each > > forward can be considered a re-transmission of the same INVITE? Thanks. > > Giancarlo > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 5 >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:34:58 -0500 > From: "Song, Youngsun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] FW: Query on max-forwards counts >To: "Kasturi Narayanan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "sip-implementors" > <[email protected]> >Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >If the receiver is a UA not a proxy, the request with max-forwards=0 >will be accepted. > >YoungSun > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kasturi Narayanan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:43 AM > > To: sip-implementors; Song, Youngsun > > Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] FW: Query on max-forwards counts > > > > The approach suggested by Robert Sparks solves the problem > > but creates an un-necessary hop when the sender knows for > > sure that it going to be dropped by the Receiver (since it is > > sending with mf=0). > > > > Kasturi > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Song, Youngsun [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:22 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [Sip-implementors] FW: Query on max-forwards counts > > > > Hi, > > > > Please see the attached response from Robert Sparks regarding > > this query. (FYI, I had also sent him a separate email...) > > Per his response, Proxy-B should forward the request to UA-B. > > > > Thanks to all who has taken the time to respond to my query, YoungSun > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:12 AM > > > To: Song, Youngsun > > > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Query on max-forwards counts > > > > > > See page 95, item 3. > > > > > > You reject when you receive, not before you send. > > > You reject when you receive a max-forwards of 0, not when > > you receive > > > a max-forwards of 1. > > > > > > RjS > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > > Behalf Of Song, > > > >> Youngsun > > > >> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 11:19 AM > > > >> To: [email protected] > > > >> Subject: [Sip-implementors] Query on max-forwards counts > > > >> > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> I have a clarification question on the following statement > > > in Section > > > >> 8.1.1.6 of RFC3261 regarding when a proxy should send a 483 and > > > >> whether the number of hops includes the destination hop. > > > >> > > > >> "The Max-Forwards header field serves to limit the number > > > of hops a > > > >> request can transit on the way to its destination. It > > > consists of an > > > >> integer that is decremented by one at each hop. If the > > > Max-Forwards > > > >> value reaches 0 before the request reaches its > > > destination, it will > > > >> be rejected with a 483(Too Many Hops) error response." > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Consider the following flow: (mf=max-forwards) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> UA-A --- INVITE (mf=2) ---> Proxy-A ---- INVITE (mf=1) > > > ---> Proxy-B > > > >> ---- INVITE (mf=0) ---> UA-B > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> In the flow above, should Proxy-B forward the INVITE with > > > >> max-forwards=0 to UA-B or should it reject the request with 483? > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for your help in advance, > > > >> YoungSun > > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> Sip-implementors mailing list > > > >> [email protected] > > > >> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 6 >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:30:20 -0500 > From: Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Only one session in forking case >To: zhang jw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [email protected] >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > >zhang jw wrote: > > hi, > > How to handle multiple 200 responses generated by one invite is decided by > > implementation.If your device can handle multi media, you can accept it and > > there will be 2 seperate sessions. > >Technically, I think what you have in that case is one session with >multiple dialogs. > > Paul > > > On 11/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> I'm desperate because I must write a thesis but I don't understand a > >> thing: > >> > >> In the forking case, with only one Invite, are created multiple dialogs > >> because are generated multiple OK responses by different UAS, but all these > >> dialogs belong to the same session, because the UA will receive only one OK > >> response?. In other words, for each OK response that a UAC receives, a > >> session is created?. Thanks Giancarlo > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Sip-implementors mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 7 >Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:33:10 +0800 > From: "Bin Chen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] From Tag and To Tag - regarding >To: "'Raj'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]> >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >Hi, > >A dialog is identified by From tag, plus To tag, plus CALL-ID. >A transaction is identified by branch. > >ABAI > >-----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raj >Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:58 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: [Sip-implementors] From Tag and To Tag - regarding > >Hello, > > Actually to identify a call, we use call-id. Can anyone please > tell me the importance of FROM tag and TO tag in the SIP messages? I am > really confused on the information related to tag. > > thanks in advance > > with regards > Raj. > > >--------------------------------- >Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. >_______________________________________________ >Sip-implementors mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Sip-implementors mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > >End of Sip-implementors Digest, Vol 44, Issue 20 >************************************************ _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
