Re: [RFC 4235 & draft-kuthan-sip-derive] 481 "Call doesn't exist" for initial SUBSCRIBE ?
Rohan Mahy <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Be generous in what you expect, but send a 481. ;-) thanks, -rohan On Nov 12, 2008, at 2:31 PM, Adam Roach wrote: > We can argue about whether a UA should send a 481 in this case. > What we can't do is change what any given deployed UA actually does > in this case. > > The difference between "should" and "does" is critical when trying > to leverage deployed behavior. > > /a > > On 11/9/08 4:02 PM, Rohan Mahy wrote: >> Hi Jiri, >> >> I am just saying that you if you send a 481 in this case, the >> semantics are clear and consistent with some other event package >> that uses call-id attributes. If you receive a 481 in this case >> you can act accordingly. You could also get back a NOTIFY with a >> body with full state with no dialogs, but this is less useful. >> >> thanks, >> -rohan >> >> On Nov 9, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Jiri Kuthan wrote: >> >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ 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