Why would you want to accept an out of dialog BYE?
I think somewhere there was a 3pcc case where it made some sense to tell
a remote user to do a BYE on some session it had. In that case I think
it was proposed to use a REFER where the the Refer-To had a message=BYE.
Paul
Frank Shearar wrote:
> draft-ietf-sipping-cc-transfer section 5 tells us that we can use GRUUs to
> associate an out-of-dialog REFER to an INVITE dialog usage.
>
> Using that same logic, could one do the same with a BYE? That is, if I've
> set up a call using a GRUU (*) and I receive an out-of-dialog BYE sent to
> that GRUU. Should I just drop the BYE saying "sorry, 481"? Should I accept
> the BYE as being "equivalent" to an in-dialog BYE (in the sense that an
> in-dialog REFER and an out-of-dialog REFER are equivalent: doing the same
> thing)?
>
> REFER uses Target-Dialog as a means of authorising the request, so what if
> one received an out-of-dialog BYE targetting one's call's GRUU, with
> Target-Dialog?
>
> I'm tempted to just say "it's not an in-dialog BYE; reject it"; after all,
> RFC 3261 says
>
> 15.1.1 UAC Behavior
>
> A BYE request is constructed as would any other request within a
> dialog, as described in Section 12.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> frank
>
> (*) Confession: my stack only implements version -10, not -11 (at the
> moment, at least). Perhaps I use obsolete terminology above; I hope not!
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
