----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "'Bob Penfield'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Sarju Garg'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Christer Holmberg'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 11:06 PM Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Use of INFO before sending ACK
> > > Hi Ranjit.. > I think thats what i wrote in my last mail... > Send 200 response for INFO received and forget it if you dont want to do any > processing.. (Specifically for Sarju's case as hes not interested in processing > any INFO request before the call is established and at the same time he wants to > continue with the normal call right sarju??). > > Bob : What if I have sent 1xx and receives INFO which I am not interested in > processing?? I cannot send 481 right?? Is the above solution acceptable in this > case?? 481 would not be correct. I suppose you could use 406 (Not Acceptable) or 501 (Not implemented). If you don't want any INFO requests, return 405 (Method Not Allowed). Since INFO is not allowed to affect call state, a 200-OK should not be too harmful. But if you really don't want to process it, it should return 4xx/5xx. Again, since INFO is not allowed to affect call state, an error response should not cause the UAC to change anything about the INVITE in progress. > > Rgds, > Munish > > > > > "Ranjit Avasarala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 11/12/2001 08:57:24 PM > > Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: Munish Chhabra/HSS@HSS, "'Bob Penfield'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: "'Sarju Garg'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Christer Holmberg'" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Use of INFO before sending ACK > > > > > Hi Munish > > How can you forget the INFO request, u need to acknowledge it right? > > Regards > Ranjit > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 8:31 AM > To: Bob Penfield > Cc: Sarju Garg; Christer Holmberg; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Use of INFO before sending ACK > > > > > Hi Bob.. > You are right... as Christer already pointed out INFO cannot not be used > for > Overlap dialing.. > I cannot think of any other scenerio in which INFO can be used before > the call > is established except for supporting services. > Then I think the only option left in Sarju's case is to send 200OK > response and > forget about the INFO request received. > > What do you suggest?? > > Rgds, > Munish > > > > > > "Bob Penfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 11/12/2001 07:27:06 PM > > To: "Sarju Garg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Munish Chhabra/HSS@HSS, > "Christer > Holmberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Use of INFO before sending ACK > > > > > If you take into account the dialog rules in bis-05, and INFO can only > be > sent for an early or established dialog and it must contain a From tag > and a > To tag. If a UAS received an INFO before it sent back a 1xx or 2xx with > a To > tag, it could consider it a non-existent call-leg (a.k.a. dialog), which > according to RFC 2976 MUST be responded to with 481. 409 has been > removed > from bis, and even if it had not, I don't think "Conflict" is the > correct > response. None of the other response codes seem to fit this case. > > cheers, > (-:bob > > Robert F. Penfield > Chief Software Architect > Acme Packet, Inc. > 130 New Boston Street > Woburn, MA 01801 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sarju Garg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Christer Holmberg" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:35 AM > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Use of INFO before sending ACK > > > > Hi Munish, > > > > Can i send 409 in this case? I do not expect INFO during call > establishment > > phase and hence 409. > > > > sarju > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Christer Holmberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: Sarju Garg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 3:04 PM > > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Use of INFO before sending ACK > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Christer.. > > > Another call scenerio in which INFO can be used before the call is > > established > > > is.. > > > For a Gateway - Gateway call > > > Overlap dialing from ISUP(ETSI) - SIP(T) , INFO message might > contain > > > embedded(tunneled) "SAM" message (more digits), which needs to be > > transmitted > > > just after sending INVITE. This might happen even before it has > received > > 18x. > > > Sarju, > > > I think in your kind of scenerio, you can send response to INFO > method > and > > just > > > ignore it (because all three options listed below might lead to call > > failure > > > incase INFO retransmission times out). > > > > > > Rgds, > > > Munish > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christer Holmberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 11/12/2001 > > 02:44:40 PM > > > > > > To: Sarju Garg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bcc: Munish Chhabra/HSS) > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Use of INFO before sending ACK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > The use of INFO for sending additional digits (if you are talking > about > > > overlap dialling) has also been discussed, and the general > understanding > > > then was that INFO should NOT be used for that. > > > > > > It is RECOMMENDED that overlap dialling is not done in SIP in the > first > > > place, but there is a draft (draft-ietf-sip-overlap-01.txt) on it. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Christer Holmberg > > > Ericsson Finland > > > > > > > > > Sarju Garg wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks for your quick response. I think this scenario is useful in > cases > > > > where all the digits are not known and the INVITE is sent. > Additional > > digits > > > > can be send in INFO message. But if I am building a UA for an end > > terminal > > > > user, then it should not receive INFO in such cases. What do you > say > in > > this > > > > case? How should I take in my UA call model? > > > > > > > > - sarju > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Christer Holmberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: Sarju Garg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 2:16 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Use of INFO before sending ACK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > There was a discussion on this some time ago, and the general > > > > > understanding is that it IS allowed to send INFO before the UAC > has > > > > > received the 200 OK response and sent the ACK. > > > > > > > > > > However, unless the UAC has received a 18x provisional response, > with > > a > > > > > To header tag and Contact header to use in the INFO, it can NOT > assume > > > > > that proxis will handle/route an INFO in the same way as the > INVITE. > > For > > > > > this reason it may (depending on the scenario you want to use > INFO > > for) > > > > > be better if the UAS sends a 18x provisional response, instead > of > 100 > > > > > Trying, when it receives the INVITE, to make sure the UAC gets > the > To > > > > > tag and Contact header as soon as possible. They are also needed > if > > the > > > > > UAC wants to terminate the specific call setup leg using BYE. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Christer Holmberg > > > > > Ericsson Finland > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sarju Garg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > If the user sends a message that is not expected during the > call > > state > > > > > > ,then how should UA behave to this message? FOr example if the > > calling > > > > > > side UA sends INFO while the call is being established (UA > sends > > > > > > INVITE and then INFO without waiting to send ACK first), then > how > > the > > > > > > does called side UA interpret this INFO message. There are 3 > > > > > > possibilites: > > > > > > 1. Ignore it, will be retransmitted after sometime > > > > > > 2. Save it, send 1xx message and process it after receiving > ACK > > > > > > 3. Send 409 message saying that this message is received at > wrong > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > To me, 2 seems to be the right option. Please let me know > which > > would > > > > > > be the correct behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Sarju > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
