Re: [RFC 4235 & draft-kuthan-sip-derive] 481 "Call doesn't exist" for initial SUBSCRIBE ?

Hi Rohan,

is this our wishful thinking (I would like it too for it simplifies few
things) only, or is there a normative reference (which I can't find).
The way I read the related stuff is I get a 200 for the SUB back, and
an "empty" NOTIFY.

-jiri

Rohan Mahy wrote:
> 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,
> -rohan
> 
> On Oct 25, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> This SUBSCRIBE arrives to Alice's UA which is not aware of that 
>> dialog. Which
>> response should it reply? The flow suggests "481 Call/Transaction doesn't
>> exist", but... is it correct?
>>
>> AFAIK, a 481 should be replied when an *in-dialog* request arrives to 
>> an UAS
>> which is not aware of that dialog. But in the above case we have an 
>> *initial*
>> request and the 481 refers to the specific dialog in the "Event" header.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
_______________________________________________
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