Hello, Jeroen On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:15:44 +0100 "Jeroen van Bemmel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote to "Igor Vanin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>:
JvB> Who are your users? The implementers of the software on the other JvB> end? I don't know exactly about the software on the other end; it seems that they are testing my softphone in the environment of a third-party soft-switch, that sends such INFOs, and they have requirement to my softphone to render content of these INFOs somehow to the user. JvB> Perhaps you could send a 491 Request Pending (ref RFC3261 section JvB> 14.2). The dialog is still there, waiting for 487 (CANCEL OK only JvB> signals that the CANCEL was succesful, it should not trigger any JvB> logic such as removing the dialog). 200 OK could be OK depending on JvB> what the INFO achieves in your scenario (eg if it contains some JvB> message for the user, and you display it, then OK would seem JvB> appropriate) Thank you for your explanation (and thanks to Paul Kyzivat's response too)! So, in my case OK to INFO seems appropriate. [...] >> My softphone supports incoming requests in outgoing dialogs in early >> state. For example, the following scenario: Sent: INVITE >> Received: 183 (INVITE) >> Received: INFO (in the early dialog with the same tags as in 183) >> Sent: 200 (INFO) >> [...] >> Received: 200 (INVITE) >> Sent: ACK >> It's ok. >> >> My question is related to the use case when the caller hangs up >> (cancels the INVITE) before INFO is received: Sent: INVITE >> Received: 183 (INVITE) >> Sent: CANCEL >> Received: 200 (CANCEL) >> Received: INFO (with the same tags as in 183) >> My softphone responds to this INFO with the 481 response code because >> it considers that the early dialog and the call were destroyed when >> the remote servers answered to my CANCEL with 200. >> But my users are complaining to this behavior. They want to receive >> 200 OK response to the INFO request. >> What do you think, is this correct? MAY my softphone respond to the >> INFO with 200 response when the initial INVITE was cancelled, or it >> MUST respond to the INFO with 481 response because the early dialog >> was terminated after successfull cancellation? -- With best regards, Igor Vanin, St. Petersburg, Russia mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gpmail.spb.ru _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
