PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:46 PM
To: Singh, Indresh; sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] 183 Session Progress with SDP
Hi,
Thank you Indresh for your response. I agree with you that we should not
be billing early until a connection has been established
Thanks for the clarification!
- Original Message -
From: Shawn Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pong Cavan [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Singh, Indresh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:01 PM
Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] 183 Session Progress with SDP
: Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] 183 Session Progress with SDP
Pong,
I was going to ask you why the long delay between the 183 and 200 !,
I guess you beat me to it.
The trace is helpful but doesn't explain the delay. The field Resent
Packet: False might not mean
It depends upon what is carried in the 183 SDP.
Let us say 183 Is carrying a SDP which connects A to a Media Server and
Media Server is just playing an announcement, that your call is proceeding.
In that case you would not want to start billing that person after receiving
media in 183.
200 OK
-Length: 0
- Original Message -
From: Singh, Indresh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Pong Cavan' [EMAIL PROTECTED];
sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] 183 Session Progress with SDP
It depends upon what is carried in the 183 SDP.
Let
, May 19, 2005 6:46 PM
To: Singh, Indresh; sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] 183 Session Progress with SDP
Hi,
Thank you Indresh for your response. I agree with you that we should not
be billing early until a connection has been established. During this call
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Length: 0
- Original Message -
From: Singh, Indresh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Pong Cavan' [EMAIL PROTECTED];
sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] 183 Session Progress with SDP
It depends upon
