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

On Nov 13, 2008, at 8:37 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:

> 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.
It might be a bit of a stretched analogy, but in this particular  
situation:
The response to the subscribe definitely talks about the subscription  
usage (its the envelope)
Information about the pointed-to dialog ending is carried in NOTIFYs  
(its the stuff in the envelope)

>
>
> ?
>
> -- 
> 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

_______________________________________________
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