Does this mean that RFC should be followed as stated? But it is very far from real world application!
Moreover, does this mean that an Operator initiating Attended Transfer cannot free-up herself since the transfer target is not responding? This would be very taxing in practical world because most of the times, the Operator wishes to execute Attended Transfer but since the transfer target does not respond in time, she frees up herself (by performing the Attendant Transfer activity in ringing state) for receiving other calls. What is the way out? -----Original Message----- From: Dale Worley [mailto:dwor...@nortel.com] Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 3:00 AM To: Vivek Batra Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Early dialog can be replaced if TransferTarget is the reciepient of dialog (early) during Attendant Call Transfer On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 10:11 +0530, Vivek Batra wrote: > If we correlate the above RFC statement with the Attendant Call Transfer, > does it mean that if Transfer Target receives the INVITE (replaces) header > and it matches with the early dialog which is not initiated by the transfer > target, transfer target should not replace the early dialog and return 481 > Call Leg Doesn't Exist. Yes, that is what it means. Dale Email Scanned for Virus & Dangerous Content by : www.CleanMailGateway.com _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
