Re: [RFC 4235 & draft-kuthan-sip-derive] 481 "Call doesn't exist" for initial SUBSCRIBE ?
"Victor Pascual Ávila" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> wrote: > El Viernes, 7 de Noviembre de 2008, Rohan Mahy escribió: >> Hi, >> >> The UA should respond with a 481. In the case of an out of dialog >> request the *meaning* of the response in this context is easy to >> understand. A receiving UA realizes that it referred to some dialog >> that does not exist. There are far too few response codes for us to >> create a new one in this situation, and it is unlikely that an >> automaton will be able to recover from this error if it has a >> different code. > > Thanks for your reply. > I agree with you, 481 is an enough good response in this case, but I'd really > prefer if it was specified in RFC 4235 (it doesn't appear at all). Thanks for the clarification. Since this is something unspecified in RFC 4235, we'll include some explanatory text on this in version 01. -- Victor Pascual Ávila _______________________________________________ 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