2008/11/13 Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I understand the reasoning behind 481 but I am a *bit* troubled by it. It is > a distinct semantic for 481, though one that is unambiguous. But 481 already > has three distinct meanings, so adding another doesn't seem like a great > idea.
I agree, imagine if you sends such a SUBSCRIBE but as refresh SUBSCRIBE (in-dialog request), and you get 481. What does it mean?: a) The current SUBSCRIBE dialog doesn't exist anymore. b) The indicated dialog in the "Event: dialog;call_id=xxx,to_tag=xxx" doesn't exist. ? -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
