On Jan 29, 2010, at 5:59 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote: > > 29 jan 2010 kl. 10.25 skrev Alex Balashov: > >> I don't know about 4xx, but 503 would be more benign for general/ >> miscellaneous errors than 603. > 503 indicates that there's a problem with the server, so that's not a good > replacement. > > We're sending this when there's a failed call, in most cases because of the > outbound channel failure without a proper hangup cause being set in that > channel driver (may very well be chan_sip :-)) > > No, we need something in the 4xx class. I haven't had time to go through and > consider all the options in the massive set of RFCs we have to work with, but > will try to do that tonight after a Friday night dinner - if no one on the > list comes up with the solution before that. > > Isn't that a hacker way of spending Friday night - enjoying the wonderful > prose of RFC3261 and companions? > > /O
What about a 481 if the 4xx is going to be used? ---fred http://qxork.com -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
